On 11/5/07, Michael DeHaan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If this is based on it being a "testing" repo I am not sure that is > right as different folks are using it in different ways, but then again, > I'm not sure > it actually matters that much either. What are the technical reasons > for keeping it?
I can see the use case where a user is testing a fix for package foo in updates-testing. As it turns out package foo only partially fixes the problem. When the developer pushes out foo +1 to updates-testing with what he believes is the true fix it turns out to break in the user's environment for whatever reason. That user would most likely like to revert to the original package foo he started with in updates-testing because it is better than the one in stable for him. If only one version of a package is in updates-testing at any one time he wouldn't have that option. Its the same argument for keeping multiple versions in stable. Just a smaller number of users impacted. It just so happens these are the users that are most likely helping out the project. I wonder if there is a way to age out backup copies of packages. I don't see any reason to keep the backup copy after a few weeks, but the hope is that the package as a whole would have graduated to stable by then anyway. -- Russell Harrison Systems Administrator -- Linux Desktops Cisco Systems, Inc. Note: The positions or opinions expressed in this email are my own. They are not necessarily those of my employer. _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
