On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Chris Weyl <cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > People know that Fedora aims to be leading-edge technology. They > expect our packages to track upstream pretty closely, and understand, > yes, we do sometimes have regressions (that are generally tracked > pretty quickly, from what I've seen). If "too many updates" is a > problem, then perhaps they should rethink what they're doing. The is another option, which is to grow some refinement in our update collection structuring. We keep updates-testing and updates exactly as they are but introduce a self-consistent culled-updates collection with a higher reporting mandate that is a subset of what flows through updates-released. People step forward to do the work to meet the higher reporting mandate of the culled collection so that each culled update has adequate information in its bodhi record to meet the higher standard. That would keep current package maintainers are not burdened by the additional requirement, but would create a space for people to prove that the additional information has a cost to benefit ratio that makes it worth doing as a best practise. However such a culled space is still not zero cost, as it would require its own repository layout and mirroring since it would be slower moving than updates. We'd still have to decide if it were worth doing with project resources even as an experiment. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
