On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 January 2018 at 14:23, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: > >> On Jan 9, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 01/08/2018 10:53 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >>> Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >>>> Well, if this firefox update was urgent, shouldn't it have been marked > >>>> urgent? > >>> > >>> Urgency is always in the eye of the beholder. I as a user consider all > >>> security updates "urgent", and in addition, I want ALL updates as soon > as > >>> they passed testing no matter whether they actually are urgent. > >> > >> You also don't want updates-testing to even exist right? > >> > >>> > >>>>> I really don't understand why we do this "batched" thing to begin > with. > >>>> > >>>> To reduce the constant flow of updates that are very minor or affect > >>>> very few mixed in with the major updates that affect lots of people > and > >>>> are urgent. > >>> > >>> But the users were already able to opt to update only weekly. So why > force a > >>> fixed schedule on them? > >> > >> To save all the Fedora users in the world from having to update metadata > >> for minor changes. Since there's a hourly dnf makecache every user in > >> the world pulls down new metadata ever time we update a repo. > > > > Could Fedora, perhaps, come up with a way to make incremental metadata > > updates fast? This shouldn't be particularly hard -- a tool like > > casync or even svn should work pretty well. Or it could be a simple > > This sounds a lot like the Atomic project and how it does things... > > Maybe some of Atomic's infrastructure could be used to distribute metadata for regular old Fedora. --Andy
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
