Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > >> But I wouldn't envision marking an update as 'bad' although that's an >> interesting concept itself. I was thinking that there would be a >> specified time when all normal updates enter the repository, followed >> by a time when only critical bug and security fix updates could be >> added, so towards the end of that interval, packages that hadn't been >> replaced with 'better' updates would automatically be assumed 'good' >> and it would be fairly safe to update machines where you want less >> risk. Then a new cycle of 'new feature' updates could start. > > And presumably you (and everybody else) would wait out the "until known > good" period; and as nobody tried it before, get to keep the pieces of the > resulting breakage... If that is true, then it would mean there's nobody who wants bleeding edge. That in turn would mean that Fedora should be redefined to not be bleeding edge, because nobody wants it that way... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
