Making updates-testing more useful

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 12:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> 
> Could there be a way to throw everything in the same repo and give the 
> user/installer a choice of how 'well-tested' something should be before 
> installing it?  Preferably with a sliding scale instead of just 2 
> choices.  Normally on new installs and machines used explicitly for 
> testing I'd expect people to want the latest changes but become more 
> conservative on machines that are working well and used for important 
> work.  The 'well-tested' concept might have factors for age, feedback, 
> emergency overrides, etc.

Take your sliding scale and multiply the various configurations that
have to be generated/tested by each stop on the scale.

Lets say for instance that we want to do a new xulrunner, very raw.
Every xulrunner dependent app will have to be built for that version and
included.  Then what if we want to do a new yelp that is pretty well
tested, but not perfect.  Now we have to build one for the well tested
scale stop, and keep the other one (what nvrs to use now?!) at the
untested slot.  Oh for fun, lets throw in something else that yelp
depends on, but is not in the xulrunner set, that is very well tested
and stable.  Now you've got a yelp for the very well tested stop, a yelp
for the medium stop, a yelp with tons of other stuff at the raw stop for
xulrunner.  What NVRs to apply to these, how many different ways can we
assemble packages to test for cohesive deps and upgrade paths, and how
to create a updates system that takes all this into consideration when
poor fred just wants to update his package?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20081210/aded2344/attachment.sig>