Jochen Schmitt wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Casey Dahlin schrieb:
There's been a lot of talk about a stable release lately. Most agree
that its not what Fedora does best and not something that would be
natural for us to do. I have a sort of middle-ground proposal that
might be easy enough to implement that we could try it out.
I see the following issue:
If a maintainer publish a security update, which depends of one of the
package which are in the 'slow updates' repository, how do you want to
handle this case?
This is the one drawback to this strategy. Here a human judgement call
would have to be made: Take the package and all its deps or run the
risk. The right answer would depend on the case, and on what the stable
group decides their use case is best served by.
--CJD
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkjECgACgkQT2AHK6txfgylDwCgugxmoct+pW6KQA002R2Hpt2q
Y/sAoMlMYSAreaaw4X6NLtTJXIDc2Woj
=AdjS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
