2010/2/27 James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > And how many silently cursed the 100s of MBs you forced on them? How > much did the above people appreciate the firehose more than having to > fix one bad update. > F12 is 3 months old and has ~8GB of updates for x86_64, but the > firehose has pumped out 18GB of packages (and that's not including > testing). F11 is 9, is ~12GB but has pumped out 36GB+ (I'm not sure I > have full package stats. from F11 GA). How many users want that? Hell, > how many developers not on rawhide want that? > > But, again, as has been pointed out to you many times now ... the > current proposal is a tiny speed bump in that horrendous amount of > updates. Surprise. We have thousands of packagers (koji knows 1288), we have tens of thousands of packages (17851 available packages in yum), and now you are surprised that yields to a 'firehose' and a 'horrendous' amount of package updates? Instead of being thankful many packagers doing a lot of work, you are trying to slow them down by a 'tiny' speed bump. 'Hell' yeah. Wording is all. I for one, like getting upstream updates fast. If there's potential for breakage (api changes, configuration file format changes, and the like) it would be nice if was warned, or better, it should be opt-in. But that fits perfectly with the rules we have already for stable releases. So again, what's the point here? People fearing the distribution 'doesn't scale'? Whatever that means. Big numbers are not something to worry about. You know, we live in the Petascale era ;) - Thomas -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
