FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[James Antill]

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 11:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
> > This is the plan that already isn't working.
> 
> Is it really "not working"? Or are we overblowing a minor incident which 
> didn't even cause all that much trouble and trying to swallow a cure which 
> is worse than the disease? I think it's really the latter.

 The one "minor incident" being where the project leader had to post to
the world that we'd screwed it up, and got covered in LWN etc. I don't
think I'd like to wait for something you'd class as a non-minor
incident.

 I probably spend at least an hour a week updating, and current have
over 220 packages available to update (a significant part of which are
shared libraries linked against most of the distro.). Download size for
everything is just over 330MB. History summary since GA shows over 1,100
Erases, Installs, Obsoletes and Updates.
 Probably when I next reboot, I'll just do a giant "yum update -y" and
hope for the best ... which is what I assume most of our users do.

 If you think there's nothing wrong with that, and even more so if you
think updates-testing should be bypassed in a significant number of
cases, well then rawhide is that => way.

-- 
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