On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Either way it's going to be some level of extra work for someone > > somewhere, I haven't denied that. Was just discussing the parameters of > > addressing (or not addressing) this issue. It's not possible to make all > > parties happy in the current framework, so either we change something, > > or we take a specific decision to make some parties unhappy, and justify > > that formally. > > > Sure. I'm just pointing out that you're trying to solve a different > problem than either the original poster or Thorsten. (And now that I > understand your problem better, perhaps yours is already solved :-) Well, I think it's really the same issue. The problem is one of expectation: we have two similar components, GNOME and KDE, in the same distribution, following different update polices - GNOME favours stable, KDE favours adventurous. This confounds expectation. Yes, my problem is potentially almost solved with the tools at our disposal and some little tweaks to interfaces, except for the problem raised by Jesse, see my reply to his post. :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
