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

Re: To update or not to update...



On 17.08.2007 15:46, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> [...]
> I am enjoying this discussion.  Both sides have very good points.  As
> for my opinion, I think that new packages 

We more and more discuss two different things in this thread: "to update
a existing package" and "ship new packages in stable directly"

> can go to stable (assuming deps are there) 

I'd be fine with this, as long as they have been in testing for a while
(some weeks maybe) -- I consider "testing" a kind of beta-stage, that
allows packers as well as others interested in EPEL to test the software
before it hits the proper repo.

I really think such a timeperiod is needed to make sure packagers are
actually working.

> and updates, can sit until major update.  I am sure
> this has flaws, (deps in particular).

Well, if someone volunteers to find a way (script, manually, ...) to
push new packages that were in testing for a while from testing to
stable while making sure all deps are still satisfied I'd say: go for it.

>  I feel that EPEL isn't too
> usable yet for an EL customer.  There just are not  enough packges.  I
> don't think we should have more barriers to get packages in.   I know
> customer could enable testing, but if they felt ok enabling testing,
> they probably wouldn't be running on RHEL/EL.  I understand what
> EPEL/Fedora testing means,  customers hear testing and stay away.

At the same time it's IMHO especially for EPEL very important to ship
quality right from the start, as we are currently still "building the
new brand 'EPEL'" phase. The view and impression others get about (¹) us
now and in hte next months will be our fame for the next years.

CU
knurd

(¹) -- s/about/on/ ? Sorry, seems I always get this wrong.


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