On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:06 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > Have FESCo look at requiring approval for major version updates in the > > middle of a release or possibly banning them outright. This also has a > > side effect of fewer updates which many find desirable. This may end up > > working on the honor system but should be possible while not compromising > > our first mission objective. > > > > This could also be coupled with the experimental repo mentioned above to > > bring new packages to stable releases but only to those who accept the > > potential consequences and have enabled such a repo. > > This is what updates-testing is for. If it doesn't work in > updates-testing, you can just drop it on the floor. The problem is when > it gets promoted from -testing to updates. We do /not/ want a third > repo here, that makes the logistics balloon out of control. > This is not what updates testing is for. Stuff in updates testing for F11 is for packages that are, ultimately, destined for F-11. The experimental repo for F-11 would be for packages that are destined for F-12 if at all. Additionally stuff "working" in testing and being pushed to stable is the problem. The firefox example is a good example of this as is the thunderbird update mentioned on fedora-devel. Thunderbird should never have been pushed to F-11 under this proposal. The new thunderbird would be released and updated in the experimental repo. The old thunderbird would continue to get updates in F-11 proper. -Mike _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
