2010/3/6 Michał Piotrowski: > 2010/3/7 Orcan Ogetbil: >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> On 03/07/2010 07:17 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >>>> >>>> Then make it 3 months, 4 months... Leave it in testing forever if you >>>> get too many complaints. But make it available for those who want it. >>>> >>> >>> updates-testing should not be used for this purpose because among other >>> things you might want to push a bug fix for the previous release that is >>> more urgent and if we are doing this we need a separate update stream >>> >> >> So? That is not a common situation and does not happen with most >> packages. But you are right it does happen. Supporting a small "urgent >> fixes" repo, OR being able to have multiple versions of one package in >> updates-testing shouldn't be too hard. >> >> Meanwhile, I believe in that updates-testing should be extensively >> used for such upcoming updates by (almost) everyone. >> >> The pros are obvious. What are the cons of this model? > > "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" > > Now we got: > fedora-updates > fedora-updates-testing > > It's easy to add another repos: > fedora-updates-urgent > fedora-updates-really-urgent > fedora-updates-not-really-urgent > fedora-updates-next-year > > Adding additional repo _won't_ solve the problem. I only use packages > from fedora-updates-testing from time to time - many regular users do > the same thing. I bet that most users don't even know about this > repo... > I only gave 1 small repo suggestion, not 4. And as you obviously didn't finish reading my sentence, that is not the only solution I proposed. Read again, there is a 0 additional repo proposal too. Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
