Update strategy

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 16.05.2007 19:54, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 5/16/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:
>> On 15.05.2007 23:13, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> The early majority wants stability with updates occuring at known
>>> times. They want technology refreshes, but want a seal of approval of
>>> some sort that the organization is steady, has standards, or has a
>>> company that will stand behind it. They also want the same thing as
>>> close to possible on as many of their systems (as they will have
>>> RHEL-3,4, and 5 deployed as servers that they want to add stuff to).
>> Those are IMHO round about one of the targets for EPEL -- even if there
>> is no company behind EPEL, they get stuff missing in RHEL easily with EPEL.
> I thought about this some more last night. Would the EPEL repository
> be better suited with an 'alternate' tree structure?
> 
> X.old            Last release

The plan is to leave all the old repos for X.X releases around; see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-a98bce5283ee336393aec81cf6fc90543c0f2277

> X.stable        Current release

Sure

> X..testing      Stuff might be pushed to current release

Under discussion -- we need to look if that's possible with bodhi.

> X.rawhide    Stuff that might go into testing for next release.

Hmm, I'd prefer to call it
X.testing
X.testing-stable
or something like that.

> X.Y/SRPMS
> X.Y/<arch>
> 
> with symbolic links to show the tree structure.
> 4.4 -> 4.old
> 4.5 -> 4.stable
> 4.6 -> 4.testing
> 4.7 -> 4.rawhide

Might be doable.

CU
thl