From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010350.html | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 119 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010350.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010350.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010350.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010350.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9f4c246d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-December/010350.html @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] RFC: Opening Backports (once again...) + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] RFC: Opening Backports (once again...)

+ Angelo Naselli + anaselli at linux.it +
+ Sun Dec 11 11:41:02 CET 2011 +

+
+ +
sabato 10 dicembre 2011 alle 17:09, Thomas Backlund ha scritto:
+> Sorry, buth this wont work in reality...
+> 
+> Consider this:
+> 
+> version X in Mageia 1
+> version X+1 in Cauldron
+> 
+> version X+1 gets backported.
+> 
+> version X+2 uploaded in Cauldron
+> version X+2 cant be backported (depends on updated libs/packages in 
+> Cauldron, and we dont backport libs that can break working setups)
+> 
+> version X+1 in backports need to be fixed (security/maintenance fix)
+> (here your logic breaks down, there is no place to fix it)
+> 
+> 
+> And since we aim for quality backports, the maintainer may want to
+> stay with version X+1 in backports even if X+2 could be backported
+> if maintainer think X+2 isn't a good candidate for some reason.
+
+So, couldn't we consider backports in the same way as updates?
+The only difference is that they go into another branch, and they
+need to have a higher version than in updates and lower than cauldron.
+
+Tests and validations follow the same rules, if a backport is not
+validated won't be pushed. 
+Is that more work for QA? unfortunately yes, but i do hope tests
+and validations can be done by more users interested in that
+update/backport.
+
+Why using backports instead of updates then? because for some reasons
+we -or maintainers- don't want to push as update a new version.
+I'm not really in favour of a strict release update, we have already
+pacakges not doing that (leaf ones, or those that are a pain to patch like
+ff for instance,...).
+In such a way backports is not going to be seen as a potential breakage of
+the system, but as a part of distro life.
+
+A problem i can see though is if a maintainer decides that a version
+that has been backported can become an update, even if it can be
+managed by working on release version, that update is svn and HD room effect...
+
+Angelo  
+
+-------------- next part --------------
+A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
+Name: not available
+Type: application/pgp-signature
+Size: 198 bytes
+Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
+URL: </pipermail/mageia-dev/attachments/20111211/665a6e8b/attachment.asc>
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1