On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:02:00 +0100
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> That's simply because you're failing to consider that
things which
> are in testing have (high) potential to make it into stable.
That's "updates < testing" ... a necessary condition, because
otherwise you won't be able to install a package from "testing".
And if you make the next logical leap, F7-updates < F8(-updates). So
your F7-updates-testing build had better have a lower nevra than that
which is either going into f8-updates(-testing), or already released on
F8 in some way.
> It would be
> better for maintainers to fix nevra issues while the build is still
> in testing than to wait until it hits updates.
Are you saying packages in "testing" automatically hit "updates"?
No, only if a maintainer chooses such and certain requirements happen,
like karma points reaching a threshold.
This would be the next design flaw. This renders "testing"
further
useless.
I sense we seemingly we have a basic divergence on the purpose of
testing.
You seem to understand it as a "delay queue" for updates, giving some
people a chance to check packages and withdraw them when they feel
they need to.
I understand "testing" as "auxiliary repo" taking candidate packages
for "updates", which generally should only be pushed by request, not
"by timeout" nor by "no receiving complaints".
It's not a me or you thing. This seems to be a you vs the rest of the
maintainers thing.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?