On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:07:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 16:21 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:41:59AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > Of course there's a bit of chicken & egg problem here. Users won't notice > > the speed/memusage improvements during the big update from F8 to F9 (if > > doing a live in-place upgrade) because that will be done using the F8 > > version of YUM. One of the interesting features of the RHN client was > > that the first thing it did was look to see if there was an update of > > itself, apply that and then re-exec itself to do the rest of the upgrade. > > So the bulk of work for any package upgrade was always done with latest > > update client. > > So you think we should push yum 3.2.13 (or so) back to F8? I'm not really in a position to make that judgement call. Depends how stable you think the new code is - if the risk of regression is small enough, then I'm sure the speed improvements would be welcomed. Dan. -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
