Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Rahul Sundaram metherid at
Mon Mar 15 17:15:34 UTC 2010

On 03/15/2010 10:37 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/15/2010 05:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Progressive and aggressive is all fine as part of development branches
>> as far as I am concerned.  Several other distributions take care of this
>> disjoint nature by splitting up the repository and having two different
>> update streams.  With a smaller amount of additional maintenance burden,
>> we can do this as well.
> Your claim is self-contradictory: Additional repos mean additional 
> maintenance burden and additional complexity.
Err, where is the contradiction?  I did clear point out that there is a
additional maintenance burden involved in this but if there is a
necessity for faster updates, it will happen anyway and it already has
elsewhere for various reasons.

> Or did I read your request incorrectly and you are proposing to 
> reintroduce a Core+Extra's split?

You did read it incorrectly.  Splitting up the update stream doesn't
involve going back to core+extras at all.   KDE has a additional repo
already in where they have first builds before they
get into the official updates repo..  Accommodating such workflows
within the Fedora infrastructure would allow people who want to move a
newer KDE in older versions, the choice to do so more easily.


More information about the devel mailing list