On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 01:54:13PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote: > On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 12:22 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Just judging by the way the infrastructure repo has grown over the course of > > RHEL5, I think that it's inevitable that we eventually roll our own version > > of tings that we are developing against. However, for the sake of reducing > > the maintainance burden we carry, I think it would be great if we could > > defer this for as long as possible. > > > > In TG2 vs TG2.1's case, most of the improvements seem to be speed. If we > > aren't having problems keeping up with the number of requests, perhaps we > > want to wait to switch to TG-2.1 on the app servers. Luke, does that sound > > right for now? > > Speed, and a lot of bugfixes. > > http://trac.turbogears.org/wiki/2.0/ChangeLog > Since there's a lot of bugfixes, it seems likely that we'll just have to suck it up and maintain our own copy in the infrastructure repo > Also, TG2.1, which is in EL-5 testing, is already on our app servers as > of yesterday. If we need to pull 2.1 out of EL-5, we'll want to > downgrade. > Yeah -- EPEL is somewhat of a separate issue but we (EPEL) may not want to have EPEL-5 at a higher evr than RHEL-6 when we can help it. I don't know that there's actually a policy on this, though. I'll ask around on #epel. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpCBQy0YZ3dG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
