kevin.kofler at chello.at
Tue May 4 22:16:59 UTC 2010
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 17:44 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> How about a de-centralized approach: main repo gets only critical
>> fixes. Releng will be responsible only for this repo.
>> Other than this, every major SIG gets their own update repo. They can
>> choose to (but are not required to) be compatible with other SIG's
>> update repo. Once every 6 months they merge best of what they have to
>> the main branch. Users, after installing Fedora, can get to choose
>> what updates repos they want to enable that are compatible.
>> It's kind of like Linus' git idea. Is this worse than the current 1
>> centralized repo approach? In theory, it automatically ends the
>> adventurous/conservative updates debate.
> I would think it leaves users with a fairly poor and confusing
> experience. It also requires a significant amount of infrastructure
> coordination to ensure that the important fixes wind up in all the extra
> repos. The potential for clashing repos goes up too, which is no fun
> for a user to try and slog through.
Yet it's exactly what will happen if you insist on conservative updates.
Repos like kde-redhat will pick up the slack and provide updates. It's very
easy to set a third-party repo, you can't stop people from providing what
they want to provide. Nor can you really stop us from closing all bugs filed
against the conservative official repo as WONTFIX with a comment of "fixed
in kde-redhat stable, please use that".
More information about the devel