[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Making updates-testing more useful

Kevin Kofler wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Could there be a way to throw everything in the same repo and give the
user/installer a choice of how 'well-tested' something should be before
installing it?  Preferably with a sliding scale instead of just 2
choices.  Normally on new installs and machines used explicitly for
testing I'd expect people to want the latest changes but become more
conservative on machines that are working well and used for important
work.  The 'well-tested' concept might have factors for age, feedback,
emergency overrides, etc.

This is horribly overengineered and just can't work (for the reasons Jesse
Keating already pointed out, so I won't repeat them).

I still don't follow the reason it can't work - unless you remove or rename packages within the window covered, it should be possible to pretend newer packages don't exist and get the exactly same package set that an earlier updater taking everything would have.

I think the added complexity would also confuse end users, but we don't even
have to get that far with the discussion because it is impossible to
implement anyway.

How about brute force with only 2 choices then? For every visible state of the repository that syncs to the mirrors, make a snapshot copy that normally ages a month and then appears as a 'safer' repository. In the abnormal case you could have a procedure to 'fix' things that turned out to be mistakes, or just skip letting certain instances appear at all. I think there should be some simpler way to get this effect by manipulating lists of package names, or using heuristics to ignore some from a repository contain the full set, but brute force could certainly work.

  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]