2010/10/6 Olivier Thauvin <[email protected]>
> * Buchan Milne ([email protected]) wrote: > > On Tuesday, 5 October 2010 23:39:09 Tux99 wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, nicolas vigier wrote: > > > > > 3) I mentioned earlier that the packager would need to use good > > > judgement and not include major incompatible version changes > > > > You are aware that this is significantly more work than 'mdvsys submit -t > > 2010.1 --define section=main/backports $package' (after some minimal > testing of > > course)? > > This part of the discuss let me think something. > > We have both some people wanting huge set of backport and other wanting > long life release w/o change except security/bug fix. > > So, why not alternate both, 1 release with backports denied but long > life, and the 2nd with backports and update but during a shorter period. > (X.0 would be the new distro with backports, X.1 the one more servers > oriented or enterprise). > > What do you think ? > > i am not pro this, i think this is better to have the same policy for all the releases.
