On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:16:19PM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 04:15:57PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > > Having said that, I don't think this is so much better than the the > > solution we already merged that it'd be worth delaying releases for > > (which were due day before yesterday). > > For what it's worth, libosinfo is not following GNOME release cycle. > The fact that GNOME Boxes maintainers decided to depend on libosinfo.git > is in a way Boxes problem. Making a libosinfo release to accommodate > Boxes makes sense, though it I'd prefer if this was anticipated and we > started preparing for a libosinfo release the week before for example. > > Rushing some last minute patches in, and insisting that the patches have > to go in before a release is pushing things a bit too far in my opinion. I think we're probably getting to the point where we should consider splitting the metadata off from the code. There's rarely a compelling reason to rush out new releases of the code, but the metadata we could practically be releasing on a weekly basis given the number of distros we track. Since new distros are generally additions only, there is less risk of regresssions to existing distros, when pushing out fast releases of the metadata whenever needed. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
