On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 07:19:49PM +0100, Lars Müller wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:35:18PM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Philipp Thomas <Philipp.Thomas2@gmx.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:18:20 +0100, Stefan Dirsch <sndirsch@suse.de> wrote:
And breaking other's repos is any better?
Where did I say that? I still think that given the BS turnaround times it would be better to have a testbed repo where things can be dropped in to be tested.
I fully agree with you that such changes should be well tested before being allowed into an official repo.
I haven't followed the full issue here, but I hope / assume that there will be a Tumbleweed testing repo before this is process is fully baked.
No, no, no. Please keep this process simple. All of us are willing to drive Tumbleweed _while_ we need to kept focused.
At the time we created network:samba:STABLE and TESTING we had a long discussion regarding if we need network:samba:3_2, n:s:3_3, n:s:3_4 and so on. And I always argued: keep it simple. Less repositories are better and focus the testing. Using an additional repositories from the openSUSE Build Service (OBS) is already hard enough for the majority of our users.
Short messager: less repositories are better.
I agree. And in this vein, I've linked from network:samba:STABLE into openSUSE:Tumbleweed now, and the packages are working great, thanks. I'm building some semi-automated tools to monitor changes in "parent" repos so I should catch it if you update the packages in this repo, but if I miss them, and you want me to update them, just let me know. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org