Seth Vidal wrote:
> If only 3 of those 5 make it through updates-testing into updates, then
> you have to figure out if the other 3 actually need the versions of the
> other 2 or if they can work with what's already available in GA or
> updates.
How's that relevant to his proposal? Or more precisely: Why would this be
any different under his proposal than now? It's the maintainer's job to push
stuff which needs to go out together in the same push (ideally as a grouped
update).
I think you're misunderstanding his proposal. It only impacts the internal
organization of the repositories and metadata, to allow for faster
mirroring. The workflow visible to packagers would stay exactly the same,
the repositories presented to the user would only get augmented by an
updates-recent (which is expected to be always enabled in most cases, often
updated, but only a very small metadata download, but which of course could
also be disabled, which would just lead to not getting updates as often, but
still always a consistent set, at least as consistent as updates are now).
Unlike your proposal, the goal here is NOT to let packages sit longer in
testing (his proposal doesn't touch this at all!), but to make mirroring
more efficient, which could also make more than 1 push/day possible, while
potentially leading to even smaller metadata downloads than now (because the
full metadata could be regenerated less often than now, though of course
there's a tradeoff there as the less we regenerate the full metadata, the
more the incremental one grows).
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
