On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:43 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable > > direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that > > problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific > > types of changes rather than a blanket ban)? On the other hand, if (like me) > > you DON'T want that feature to go away, please provide valid use cases. > > I just have another idea: Add the karma value to the repository > metadata and write a yum plugin to only install packages with a certain > amount of karma. This sucks for a few reasons: 1. Any kind of large and complex excluding done client side performs horribly. 2. Not enough people use +karma, as against opening BZs. 3. Even if we could deal with both of the above, you'd now have the problem that "good updates" will be replaced by "bad updates" as soon as they are pushed. 4. Also having the process be "you must do X if you want only good updates" as against "you must do X if you want more, less tested, updates" is backwards for a stable release. ...and as in all threads about this that I can remember, the obvious fix to the above is having two repos. and let everyone who wants a giant firehose of mostly working stuff can enable this second repo. if only we could create this "testing of the updates" repo. surely everyone would be happy. -- James Antill - james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27 http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
