On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:02 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 04:44 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>>> Option two is one more repo for all "updates". Which may be well
>>> good, but might also be less interesting than a more general approach. In
>>> #4, what I'm suggesting is essentially the possibility of a SIG having
>>> overlay repos for whatever distro version(s) they want; they could be
>>> experimental, they could be for upgrades that don't conform to a more
>>> strict update policy, it could be for things even *I* haven't thought of
>>> yet ;)
>> Is this what you had in mind?
> It's very similar, but not quite the same, for a couple of reasons. To wit,
> Jesse's proposal mostly seems to focus on the repos being somewhat
> transient - "Bob wants a repo to test something" - whereas I'm
> a longer-term purpose. Also, his is on a individual level, whereas what I'm
> discussing would be more at a SIG level. That in some sense may make
> implementation somewhat easier, by putting a damper on the rate at which
> they need to be created and destroyed, and also might include some
> oversight as to whether creating it is really such a good idea - but
> making it a "is this completely bogus" sort of choice, rather than a
> "does this fit in to our rigorous policies" kind of decision. This
> would also help avoid the option-overload that comes with #3 on my
> original example list.
Peter's characterization is correct, however if we had KoPeRs, it's not
that hard to expand it to SIG level repos of a less transient nature.
The same base work has to be done for either case.
Agreed - it's an almost (if not) identical mechanism, but a very different
Old MacDonald had an agricultural real-estate tax abatement.