On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:59:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >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. You are under the impression that we have an update policy at all. We don't. So we have nothing to satisfy, which makes it very possible. >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 Actually, we could do nothing and be just fine. Let the users decide if and when and what they want to update. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
