On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:02 -0500, Peter Jones wrote: > On 03/04/2010 04:44 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Peter Jones wrote: > >> > >> Option two is one more repo for all "updates". Which may be well and > >> good, but might also be less interesting than a more general approach. In > >> #4, what I'm suggesting is essentially the possibility of a SIG having > >> overlay repos for whatever distro version(s) they want; they could be > >> experimental, they could be for upgrades that don't conform to a more > >> strict update policy, it could be for things even *I* haven't thought of > >> yet ;) > >> > > > > Is this what you had in mind? > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/KojiPersonalRepos > > It's very similar, but not quite the same, for a couple of reasons. To wit, > Jesse's proposal mostly seems to focus on the repos being somewhat > transient - "Bob wants a repo to test something" - whereas I'm discussing > a longer-term purpose. Also, his is on a individual level, whereas what I'm > discussing would be more at a SIG level. That in some sense may make > implementation somewhat easier, by putting a damper on the rate at which > they need to be created and destroyed, and also might include some > oversight as to whether creating it is really such a good idea - but > making it a "is this completely bogus" sort of choice, rather than a > "does this fit in to our rigorous policies" kind of decision. This > would also help avoid the option-overload that comes with #3 on my > original example list. > Peter's characterization is correct, however if we had KoPeRs, it's not that hard to expand it to SIG level repos of a less transient nature. The same base work has to be done for either case. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
