On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 22:51 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 22:13 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
> 2. If we do implement this, could we consider not batching new
> updates in addition to security and "urgent" updates? New package
> updates wouldn't get downloaded onto users systems upon running
> upgrade", so the update process would still *feel* batched from an
> end-user point of view. But we would simultaneously be able to
> new software quickly to users, or at least as quickly as we do
> (I find that people rarely test new package updates, or at least
> rarely test them and give karma, which means that a newpackage
> generally sits the full 7 or 14 days in bodhi-- so I don't think we
> should add up to 7 days to that timetable).
That's a good suggestion that I hadn't though about. Sure, I think
that's a good idea - care to propose it on the pull request yourself
since it was your idea? This is the line where an "or self.type is
newpackage" would go:
If a new package needs an updated library from another package, then
the update in Bodhi would contain both a new package and an update.
Should that still go directly to request:stable? Or does the (non-
urgent) update make it go to request:batched?