Testing Fedora - small (?) suggestion.

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le dimanche 12 novembre 2006 à 13:56 +0100, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:41:56 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 
> > <handwaving mode="major"/>
> > 
> > Ideally the situation would be the following :
> > 
> > 1. developer A releases a set of packages breaking R or BR of packages
> > of maintainers B, C, D
> >
> > 2. buildsys detects the breakage, assigns a temporary repo to the broken
> > packageset, warns A, B, C, D of the situation (maybe auto-opening
> > bugzilla entries). Waits some standard period. Nags A, B, C, D every
> > other day by mail.
> > 
> > 3. During the period fixed packages from B, C, and D are added to the
> > temporary repo till it's complete. When it reaches completion it's
> > merged with the main repo.
> 
> One question raised here: What to do with the "temporary repo" with
> regard to subsequent build jobs?

I thing everyone agrees the temporary/staging/quarantine repo must be
used by the buildsys for subsequent builds, and be published for
maintainers to build again in mock (not for tester installation though)

> One solution for that
> is to avoid the most common breakage (aka compatibility packages,
> libfooMAJOR-devel packages during ABI upgrades, no dangerous renames --
> and probably automated rebuilds of dependency chains, regardless of
> whether the results work).

Well, I didn't wrote it but in my mind when we escalate to rel eng after
the first TTL expiration, that's to decide if B, C, D should be poked
harder, their packages dropped, or A should be asked to do a compat
package since his stuff is obviously breaking too much stuff.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot