On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 22:51 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 22:13 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > 2. If we do implement this, could we consider not batching new > > package > > updates in addition to security and "urgent" updates? New package > > updates wouldn't get downloaded onto users systems upon running > > "dnf > > upgrade", so the update process would still *feel* batched from an > > end-user point of view. But we would simultaneously be able to > > deliver > > new software quickly to users, or at least as quickly as we do > > today. > > (I find that people rarely test new package updates, or at least > > rarely test them and give karma, which means that a newpackage > > request > > generally sits the full 7 or 14 days in bodhi-- so I don't think we > > should add up to 7 days to that timetable). > > That's a good suggestion that I hadn't though about. Sure, I think > that's a good idea - care to propose it on the pull request yourself > since it was your idea? This is the line where an "or self.type is > newpackage" would go: > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/1678/files#diff-6406e7faaf > 25263056c68009517cf66dR2376
If a new package needs an updated library from another package, then the update in Bodhi would contain both a new package and an update. Should that still go directly to request:stable? Or does the (non- urgent) update make it go to request:batched? -- Mathieu _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
