On 11/24/20 7:04 AM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 11/23/20 3:18 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Robert Schweikert píše v Po 23. 11. 2020 v 09:17 -0500:
Apparently we do not have that policy, or it is not enforced.
There are messages regularly send about failing packages.
Please read my message suggesting a policy again. I pointed out that we should have a clear direction about when stuff gets evicted.
The messages about failing builds addresses only 1/2 the problem of "we have too many failing builds".
And what is wrong with not having the "latest and greatest"?
We are talking about d:l:p and Factory (the word “development” is a hint). These are supposed to be the latest and greatest (without the bleeding edge with the stress on “bleeding” as was the situation with Fedora Rawhide). If you want mature and secure, then it is Leap (or SLE) we are talking about.
And again, my previous message where I proposed a simple policy had some provision for "$SOME_ACCEPTABLE_TO_US_VERSION_DRIFT_TO_LATEST_UPSTREAM"
The way I see it is we should actively encourage having the latest version, however, in my opinion having an older working version in most cases is better then having no version. Then having no version is better then having a "Broken" version, where no longer building is a pretty good indication of brokenness (especially where we have tests enabled). The other easy measurable indicator of brokenness is reports in bugzilla. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B