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

Re: Lack of update information

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Chris Weyl <cweyl alumni drew edu> wrote:
> People know that Fedora aims to be leading-edge technology.  They
> expect our packages to track upstream pretty closely, and understand,
> yes, we do sometimes have regressions (that are generally tracked
> pretty quickly, from what I've seen).  If "too many updates" is a
> problem, then perhaps they should rethink what they're doing.

The is another option, which is to grow some refinement in our update
collection structuring.   We keep updates-testing and updates exactly
as they are but introduce a self-consistent culled-updates collection
with a higher reporting mandate that is a subset of what flows through
updates-released.   People step forward to do the work to meet the
higher reporting mandate of the culled collection so that each culled
update has adequate information in its bodhi record to meet the higher
standard.  That would keep current package maintainers are not
burdened by the additional requirement, but would create a space for
people to prove that the additional information has a cost to benefit
ratio that makes it worth doing as a best practise.

However such a culled space is still not zero cost, as it would
require its own repository layout and mirroring since it would be
slower moving than updates. We'd still have to decide if it were worth
doing with project resources even as an experiment.


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