diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010365.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010365.html | 155 |
1 files changed, 155 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010365.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010365.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..503f8a588 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010365.html @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] RFC: Opening Backports (once again...) + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20RFC%3A%20Opening%20Backports%20%28once%20again...%29&In-Reply-To=%3C4EE4EBC7.6020700%40arcor.de%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="010363.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="010367.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] RFC: Opening Backports (once again...)</H1> + <B>Florian Hubold</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20RFC%3A%20Opening%20Backports%20%28once%20again...%29&In-Reply-To=%3C4EE4EBC7.6020700%40arcor.de%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] RFC: Opening Backports (once again...)">doktor5000 at arcor.de + </A><BR> + <I>Sun Dec 11 18:43:35 CET 2011</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="010363.html">[Mageia-dev] RFC: Opening Backports (once again...) +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="010367.html">[Mageia-dev] RFC: Opening Backports (once again...) +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#10365">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#10365">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#10365">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#10365">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>Am 11.12.2011 17:11, schrieb Maarten Vanraes: +><i> Op zondag 11 december 2011 11:41:02 schreef Angelo Naselli: +</I>>><i> sabato 10 dicembre 2011 alle 17:09, Thomas Backlund ha scritto: +</I>>>><i> Sorry, buth this wont work in reality... +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> Consider this: +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> version X in Mageia 1 +</I>>>><i> version X+1 in Cauldron +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> version X+1 gets backported. +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> version X+2 uploaded in Cauldron +</I>>>><i> version X+2 cant be backported (depends on updated libs/packages in +</I>>>><i> Cauldron, and we dont backport libs that can break working setups) +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> version X+1 in backports need to be fixed (security/maintenance fix) +</I>>>><i> (here your logic breaks down, there is no place to fix it) +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> And since we aim for quality backports, the maintainer may want to +</I>>>><i> stay with version X+1 in backports even if X+2 could be backported +</I>>>><i> if maintainer think X+2 isn't a good candidate for some reason. +</I>>><i> So, couldn't we consider backports in the same way as updates? +</I>>><i> The only difference is that they go into another branch, and they +</I>>><i> need to have a higher version than in updates and lower than cauldron. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> Tests and validations follow the same rules, if a backport is not +</I>>><i> validated won't be pushed. +</I>>><i> Is that more work for QA? unfortunately yes, but i do hope tests +</I>>><i> and validations can be done by more users interested in that +</I>>><i> update/backport. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> Why using backports instead of updates then? because for some reasons +</I>>><i> we -or maintainers- don't want to push as update a new version. +</I>>><i> I'm not really in favour of a strict release update, we have already +</I>>><i> pacakges not doing that (leaf ones, or those that are a pain to patch like +</I>>><i> ff for instance,...). +</I>>><i> In such a way backports is not going to be seen as a potential breakage of +</I>>><i> the system, but as a part of distro life. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> A problem i can see though is if a maintainer decides that a version +</I>>><i> that has been backported can become an update, even if it can be +</I>>><i> managed by working on release version, that update is svn and HD room +</I>>><i> effect... +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> Angelo +</I>><i> you can have new version as updates. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> backporting is the addition of new features and thus the possibility of new +</I>><i> bugs, even with QA, you can't completely get the same level of stability from +</I>><i> updates, as you get from backports... +</I>><i> +</I>><i> but that's fine. it doesn't need to be, it's not enabled by default, it'd be +</I>><i> nice if those work well. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> what we really want is for backports to be suggested in rpmdrake on a case by +</I>><i> case basis. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> since fixing bugs is more important that adding new features and some people do +</I>><i> updates, but don't want any risk, it's completely valid that they are +</I>><i> separate. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> i just vote that we make a svn backports branch, (NOT a separate repos, it'd +</I>><i> be nice if we can just branch it, which doesn't use any extra disk space), for +</I>><i> some packages it means we can add a patch on backports to make it work for +</I>><i> mga1 specifically and still merge patches from cauldron into backports if we +</I>><i> want (or wherever we branch from) +</I>><i> +</I>><i> we should however keep matches close at a hand, in case people do weird +</I>><i> things, some automated checks could be done and possibly mailed somewhere to +</I>><i> show that suspicious activity is going on... if it's tmb, we know we can +</I>><i> ignore it then. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> i think this is by far the most flexible solution, and we should try to keep +</I>><i> our level of maintainers high, but informing them of where it can go wrong, +</I>><i> what they should look for... +</I>><i> +</I>><i> just my 0.02€ +</I>><i> +</I>Whatever the decision is, maybe we could tie this to some conditions: +Only allow backports if there are near-zero security/critical bugs for the +stable release or if there are no open bugs for the package in question? +Just some random crazy idea ... + +IMHO we should focus on security and bugfixes for the stable release, +and there are currently too many security bugs open, some for a +really long time, where nothing is happening for months, yet we still +talk and concern about opening backports. +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="010363.html">[Mageia-dev] RFC: Opening Backports (once again...) +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="010367.html">[Mageia-dev] RFC: Opening Backports (once again...) +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#10365">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#10365">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#10365">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#10365">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + +<hr> +<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list</a><br> +</body></html> |