Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (1134 mails)

[Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@xxxxxxxx>]

On 06/14/2012 11:18 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> On 14.06.2012 17:13, Adrian Schröter wrote:
> > But you could remove such packages in :Staging easily, so original Factory 
> > package
> > would be active again.
> > The packager can fix it in his devel project and submit it again to :Staging.
> >
> > So you would basically establish an automatic revert policy via that.
> >
> > The advantage of having just one :Staging instead of multiple ones would be that
> > all eyes would be at the same spot.
> OK, sounds possible. How would a time line of a gcc update or an
> automake update look like in your case? Please consider we have ~4000
> SRs a month.

People would have to SR to :Staging and once things are "green" there 
propagate to :Factory automatically, IMHO. But then for gcc you'd still 
have the same problem as gcc itself would be just fine in :Staging.

Thus there would be some requirement to automatically detect build 
errors due to changes in a given package. That sounds pretty difficult 
to me.

my $0.02
Robert

--
Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
Tech Lead
rjschwei@xxxxxxxx
rschweik@xxxxxxxxxx
781-464-8147

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx