dist-git proof of concept phase 2 ready for testing
jkeating at redhat.com
Wed Dec 23 21:17:35 UTC 2009
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 15:46 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Okay, we've definitely got some slight misunderstanding here... :)
> I was objecting to Kevin's suggestion that we should be able to build
> official packages from branches named ^private-*. But building from a
> branch tagged something !^private- is actually necessary sometimes.
> The kernel folks have had to do just that from time to time. For
> example, say the F12 cvs head moves on towards 2.6.32 and an official
> build is submitted to updates-testing. Meanwhile, a security update for
> the already-released-to-users 2.6.31.x kernel needs to get pushed out.
> We create an F12-specific 2.6.31.x branch and build an *official* kernel
> to push to updates post-haste to fix the security issue. This *does*
> need to be allowed. But it wouldn't be on a branch named "private-*", it
> would be quite blatant and obvious in naming, such as
> f12-2_6_31_x-kernel-branch or similar.
> I think there was some confusion in my use of "private branch", where I
> was referring to branches with a name ^private-*, while Kevin was
> thinking in a more general sense, which would encompass the above kernel
I understand the use case, I'm still not super keen on having official
built packages come out of a branch. Makes discovery somewhat
difficult, and leads to problems if we have to bump+build something and
don't realize that the real live code is actually on a branch.
So this needs some more thinking, and discussion, which is happening
here, which is a good thing. Healthy debate is good, lets just endeavor
to keep it healthy (:
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the fedora-devel-list