Re: RedHat update of up2date.

On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 09:14, Jacco Ligthart wrote:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 15:06, Hunter Matthews wrote:
> > OK, VOTE TIME.
> >
> > I'm sitting on 1.4.2, which is up2date v2.8 and v3.0 compatibility,
> > because we have reports that somethings broken in the delete code (The
> > reason clean trees work is that they don't hit the bugs in the delete
> > code).
> >
> > Last night John B. gave me a mirror of his 18G unclean tree (its
> > basically a mirror of ftp.redhat.com).
> >
> > Guess what? Builds great for me using the same snapshot that broke for
> > him.
> >
> > TODAYS VOTE:
> >
> > Release a suspected 1.4.2 for those people who need the newer versions
> > of up2date to work while we tree to find a tree that breaks for me, OR
> > continue to sit on the code until we find that tree AND I figure out
> > whats breaking?
> >
> > Voting will end tomorrow at 10am EST.
> >
> >
> > A clean tree is "any collection of dirs in any collection of channels
> > where no channel contains more than one version of a given package"
> 
> I will never have a clean tree. Therefore I will not implement a version with 
> this suspicion. 
> The incompatibility with up2date v2.8 and v3.0 is minor in contrast.
> 
> Therefore I will vote against. (although if you release, I won't implement and 
> just wait for the next release where this isue is fixed)

Thats what I recommend, but I counted your vote as -1.

> 
> Jacco
> _______________________________________________
> Current-server mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/current-server
> 
> 
-- 
Hunter Matthews                          Unix / Network Administrator
Office: BioScience 145/244               Duke Univ. Biology Department
Key: F0F88438 / FFB5 34C0 B350 99A4 BB02  9779 A5DB 8B09 F0F8 8438
Never take candy from strangers. Especially on the internet.