Suggestion Next Release

[seth vidal]

On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 15:15 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:07:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 16:21 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:41:59AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > Of course there's a bit of chicken & egg problem here. Users won't notice
> > > the speed/memusage improvements during the big update from F8 to F9 (if 
> > > doing a live in-place upgrade) because that will be done using the F8 
> > > version of YUM. One of the interesting features of the RHN client was
> > > that the first thing it did was look to see if there was an update of 
> > > itself, apply that and then re-exec itself to do the rest of the upgrade.
> > > So the bulk of work for any package upgrade was always done with latest
> > > update client.
> > 
> > So you think we should push yum 3.2.13 (or so) back to F8?
> 
> I'm not really in a position to make that judgement call. Depends how stable
> you think the new code is - if the risk of regression is small enough, then
> I'm sure the speed improvements would be welcomed.

the biggest hang up is the obsoletes handling. We've fixed all the
unversioned obsoletes and provides in rawhide that I know of - but we
may not have fixed them in F8.

-sv