Run of repoclosure against core-development and extras-development

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 7/21/05, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at laiskiainen.org> wrote:
> I'm still of the opinion that extras should have a separate "release tree"
> and updates (+ updates-testing) tree just like FC has, even if the
> "release" of FE for some version doesn't happen the very same date as FC
> does. Rolling trees make me ... nervous. 

I'm not going to disgree with your opinion. But if Extras is going to
continue to roll I will continue to demand keeping older versions of
packages around for "long enough."

> With a "release tree" you can be
> sure there's at least one known version of a given software with known
> behavior, buggy or not. With rolling trees you never know.

I think there are other advantages as well in terms of how to make it
easy for 3rd party vendors to provide install media and update media
sets for extras... when we are ready to deal with that issue directly.

> Yup, that'd be a nice addition to repoclosure. I'll try to remember that
> the next time I'm bored and looking for something to hack on :)

Dancing bear hash bars are of higher importance.

-jef