2008/11/18 Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Casey Dahlin wrote: > >> Jeff Spaleta wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Security updates break the model for testing to. This is a known problem >>> space. >>> >>> If you take your idea...but also make it so client side users can >>> specifically know what is tagged as security and what is >>> not...regardless of repo "speed" then you probably have something >>> robust enough for everyone. >>> >>> Give client side the option to pull ALL security updates...from any >>> repo "speed." That way the "slow" update repo doesn't have to be >>> burdened with dealing with security updates as part of their mission >>> as a special case. >>> >>> -jef >>> >>> >> Not a bad idea. > > you mean like the already existing yum security plugin and the update info > that bodhi generates? > > -sv > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel- maybe these 2 threads should be merged: 1. F11 Proposal: Stabilization 2. Proposal - "Slow updates" repo -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
