FESCo wants a more sane updates policy (feedback requested)

[James Antill]

On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 15:21 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 26 February 2010 22:54, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> > - If stable pushes were more restricted, perhaps that would get us more
> >  testing? If someone required a newer version and could easier
> >  install/test from updates-testing and provide feedback, don't we all
> >  win? Perhaps we could have PackageKit/yum say "you have the latest
> >  stable version of foo, but foo-2.0 is in updates-testing, would you
> >  like to test it and provide feedback?
> 
> I had PK code to do that, but the check for updates took way too long,
> as the updates-testing repo had to be enabled, the primaries
> downloaded (and maybe the file lists too), updates resolved and then
> disabled again, in ADDITION to the normal updates check. The package
> manager is just too slow to get PackageKit data to make such a thing
> work without making the user wait an extra 30 seconds.

 I can't think of any reason why you'd need, or want, to have
updates-testing checks block any other GUI operation.

> If we could speed up the dep checking and downloading, I agree it
> would be better for usability, and the exposure of updates-testing
> generally.

 Dep. checking is pretty fast, upT¹ is roughly 10 seconds for 300
packages here and lsuT is like 2.5 seconds. I guess maybe that's worth
caring about if you block everything else behind it, but...

 As to the downloads, if you know of a way to speed up a users internet
connection ... feel free to spread your wisdom.


¹ We also have an optimisation for large updates, that we can probably
turn on for F13.

-- 
James Antill - james at fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching