terminology and the hierarchy of releases

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:14:37AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> If it were something like Release to Release, or Release to Beta, then it 
> would matter.  Beta to Beta and Beta to Release falls under the "This is 
> not supported, don't do it" arena.

That's exactly the issue scaring rawhide surfers and point to point
testers away IMHO (at least me ;).

I surely know epochs are evil and long term they should be replaced by
a upgrade-path local solution as suggested in other threads and on
rpm-list.

But package downgrades are the only real legitmate use for epochs
(other than upstream version hickups). If a bug is such severe that it
requires a package downgrade it is severe enough to have its epoch
bumped up (of course it's better to have the package fixed).

It isn't hard work to keep upgrade paths consistent throughout
"developement" and have "testN" and releases be treated like time
snapshots of it. How many packages were affected by package downgrades
in the last couple of months? Less than a dozen compared to thousands?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20040210/bf10f640/attachment.sig>