Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (1134 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Calling for a new openSUSE development model
  • From: Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:39:53 -0400
  • Message-id: <4FDA05C9.90405@suse.com>


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

< Previous Next >
This Thread
Follow Ups