On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:50:22AM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: > On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add > > another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the > > only updates repo enabled by default. > > Splitting the updates repos into "updates-testing," > "updates-probably-stable," "updates-stable," "updates-really-stable," or > whatever doesn't solve the problem. Not only would the choice of what > is on by default remain the only distinction of significance, but it > would also subdivide Fedora releases in a way that prevents bugs that > are fixed with version upgrades from reaching most users. Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take. With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g. splitting the distribution. At least for me as a FOSS believer getting upstream bugfixes fast (especially if I submitted them upstream) into the distro is a key feature. > If we want to go down that road we might as well write a yum plugin that > installs updates only if they meet a user-set karma threshold. At least > then we wouldn't have repo proliferation. This would work for me, too, and was suggested in some other mail. But this would also need repo adjustments to keep the old packags with enough karma. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpCuPhLeFYqg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
