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

Re: 182 pending F11 stable updates. WTF?



2009/5/8 Jesse Keating <jkeating redhat com>:
> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 05:12 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> 1. It already is
>> 2. It doesn't have to be that way
>>
>> IMO, a significant portion of such issues is caused by rel-eng's freeze
>> and defects in fedora's work-flow.
>
> The cut images will always remain stagnant, the rpms not changing.  So
> long as we allow updates to previous releases to be n-v-r higher than
> the GA versions of the next release, we will always have a broken
> upgrade path from N-1+updates to N.
>

I've always assumed that we're supposed to try and not break the
upgrade path for (N-1+updatesForN-1) to (N+updatesForN). Is that not
the case?

> Are you suggesting some distro release level super epoch?
>

I've often wondered why we don't have such a thing, but I've always
noticed that discussions around these sorts of ideas usually become a
bit of a flame fest.

J.


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