2009/5/8 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 05:12 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> 1. It already is >> 2. It doesn't have to be that way >> >> IMO, a significant portion of such issues is caused by rel-eng's freeze >> and defects in fedora's work-flow. > > The cut images will always remain stagnant, the rpms not changing. So > long as we allow updates to previous releases to be n-v-r higher than > the GA versions of the next release, we will always have a broken > upgrade path from N-1+updates to N. > I've always assumed that we're supposed to try and not break the upgrade path for (N-1+updatesForN-1) to (N+updatesForN). Is that not the case? > Are you suggesting some distro release level super epoch? > I've often wondered why we don't have such a thing, but I've always noticed that discussions around these sorts of ideas usually become a bit of a flame fest. J. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
