is it okay to push 0.7.3 transifex update

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:40:24 -0600 (CST)
Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:01:58 +0530
> > Rakesh Pandit <rakesh.pandit at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello list,
> > >
> > > I would need approval for importing transifex 0.7.x for EPEL 5.
> > > As per ticket
> > > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1455 0.7.x
> > > transifex is required for infrastruture update.
> >
> > Infrastructure has their own repo, so it could just go there. ;)
> >
> 
> Every time we do this though it feels like a failure.

Yeah. ;( 

I fear our best will be to try and educate upstreams and see if they
can take into consideration doing updates as a priority. 

As a side note, I think it still might be a good idea to maintain a
file/wiki page listing each thing thats in the infrastructure repo and
why it's there. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20091230/fb6094ab/attachment.sig>