On 10.06.2008 13:34, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I too have thought that doing pushes on different dates is hard on
end-users, but we need to remember that a non-trivial amount of effort
goes into pushing these updates.
Well, it's a bit of work, but it not that it takes multiple hours. Doing
it in one go might in fact be a little bit easier for me (or others that
prepare and realize the move).
IOW: I'm all for it (that why I asked mpdehaan to propose his idea here
after he brought it up on #epel).
BTW: I fully agree with what Ville said in:
Just a general note/reminder, I don't use cobbler/koan myself nor
anything about them and maybe this is already being observed with their
Intrusive updates like the one described above should be done only for good
Having a repo where some packages are maintained in Fedora update style
(e.g. update to the latest versions often) while others are maintained
in RHEL update style (update only if there is a really good reason;
don't break systems; don't force admis to adjust configuration) is IMHO
the worst thing EPEL can do. We (like every project/repo) *really* need
a consistent "look and feel", as EPEL users otherwise will be confused
and nobody will be happy with EPEL.
As RHEL/CentOS users are used to the RHEL update style I'd say updating
EPEL packages in RHEL style is the safest bet. And that what the
guidelines suggest right now. We don't enforce that, but I tend to say
some EPEL packages are moving forward to fast; maybe we should ask some
of the EPEL maintainer to slow down a bit. I did that in the past now
and then (I just watched epel-commits and asked maintainers if they were
preparing big updates if the update really is needed), but I don't do
that anymore due to a lack of time. Sorry.