Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
metherid at gmail.com
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 kde-redhat.sf.net 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