On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
Our pain points aren't so much the lifecycle. We have things
redeploy machines pretty easily, doing so every 6 months shouldn't be a
big deal. The bigger pain for us is the updates flow. If you apply
fedora updates about once a week, theres a pretty gigantic pile of
them, so it would take you a while to look through them and see what
they are. If you apply less often (for our builders they are isolated,
so we just rebuild them with updates every few months), there's
basically no way to look at all the updates and see if you care.
What are you looking for when reviewing the updates? For example, are
you individually judging the risk vs. benefit of every package, or
just looking for incompatibilities?
Suppose there were a set of 500 updates for which all of the
respective maintainers said that they only contain crash fixes. Would
you want also want to review these updates individually? Apply all of
them? Apply only those updates that fix crashes you know you have
already experienced? Apply none of them?
(I'd also be interested in an answer for the more general case of "bug
fixes", not just crash fixes where it's fairly unlikely that the fix
can make things worse.)