updates

[Michael Young]

On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 10:15, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> Michael Young wrote:
> 
> >I do understand the term "beta." But, I thought this beta was in feature
> >freeze already, so it has a specific group of packages. Is my thinking
> >incorrect? The process of getting packages to RHN is bound to be
> >automated, so, why would it be so hard to populate the channel? 
> 
> Question: is your thinking incorrect?
> Answer: yes
> 
> Bound to be automated...hmmm yes...
> automated QA testing...automated RH errata advisory writing...
> yep I'm sure there isn't much in the way of human decision making as to
> what is worth creating an errata notice for and then placing in the rhn
> network channels.

The RPMs are getting QA no matter what, otherwise they would never get
released. For the RHEL beta, the are no errata notices, packages just
appear on the channel. The RHL beta could be the same. I'm not
suggesting the beta rpms go through the same process as the "released"
rpms, only that they are put on the channel. But everyone seems opposed
to that for some reason.

I guess I'm not understanding the difference in the beta process for
RHEL vs RHL. A beta is a beta, no matter what name you put on it.

> 
> I'm sure its not HARD to populate the channel..with a whole bunch of
> broken packages picked up out of rawhide...but that sort of defeats the
> point of the service rhn provides now doesn't it?  We are really early
> in the beta phase yet...why not just sit back and wait and see.
> 

I didn't say "let's put rawhide on RHN," only the relevant packages that
have a bugfix applied and need to be tested. I don't see how it defeats
the purpose of RHN. RHN is a quick easy way for me to 1) get updated
packages, 2) add packages to a running system. Just because this is a
beta does not make those funtions less useful.
 

-- 
Michael Young <betatest at gnucode.kicks-ass.net>