On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:10:18AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 17.04.2007 10:35, Axel Thimm wrote: > >[...] > >Well, I can include Extras, too, the data above was from a mail to > >Jesse when it was about Core. For Extras the numbers are far more > >striking, here is a common table including the FC data [...] > > Hmmm, do you sill have a tree of FE[3-6] how it looked like when FC[3-6] > were released? No, do you? > Otherwise your numbers are IMHO totally misleading, as they show > what got rebuild between release of FC[3-6] and *today*. No, they compare the latest state of FE<N> and the latest state of FE<N+1>. For FE5 and FE6 for example it compares the latest state as of today. For FE4 and FE5 it compares FE4's EOL date (~FC6) and today. So there is no time discrepancy as you assume. And it comes as no suprise since as we all should know FE was always doing mass rebuilds until including FC6. I wonder how the 0.6% and 1% were forgotten in the process. Perhaps someone did a rebuild with the same EVR - we didn't catch these in the old days. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpahhhbyxuVU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
