On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 05:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > I probably couldn't do much justice to a comprehensive plan as I have > > insufficient knowledge of how the buildsystem works. I was acting at a > > higher level - just trying to point out that it's essentially doomed to > > try and please everyone with a single update repository, that's not an > > argument anyone can win. Either the 'we want stable updates' camp or the > > 'we want shiny new stuff' camp is going to be disappointed. > > The problem is that your solution doubles maintainer and rel-eng workload. I > think we really don't have the resources for that. Please don't personalize things. It's not 'mine', and it's not really a solution. I'm simply pointing out that it's literally impossible to satisfy both possible update policies with a single unitary repository. We either have to make it clear which policy we use and which policy we don't, and hence which theoretical user base we are not targeting, or take on extra work and try to satisfy both. I am not declaring myself in favor of, or against, any particular option. I'm just pointing out the parameters of the question. -- 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
