[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: To update or not to update...




On 16.08.2007 10:39, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
>> A repo where some packages stay stable while others are updated to the
>> latest and greatest is a mix that won't make people happy, as those that
>> are those that are interested in a "a stable base" and those that want
>> "latest and greatest" both don't get what they want.
> 
> On the other hand this is what happens within the base product too. The 
> desktop apps and treated different from system apps for example.

Could you or somebody else outline the scheme RHEL uses in more detail?
Is it anywhere written down?

> You 
> might want to consider having a policy that differentiates between them.

AFAICS the current RHEL-scheme is similar to what the EPEL policy says
already: If there are very strong reason to update something to a new
major version then go for it with the next quarterly update. But the
bulk of packages doesn't get updates to the latest major version.

Further: I don't think a more detailed "policy" makes sense -- I'd say
we should discuss all "major update: yes or no?" for EPEL on a case by
case basis here on the list. In RHEL I suppose it's similar: a
release-engineer (or whatever the individual or group is called) likely
has to ACK major updates there as well.

CU
knurd


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]