On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Peter Robinson
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Peter Robinson
> wrote:
> >> 2) Automatic unpushing of updates that haven't gone
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> 2) Automatic unpushing of updates that haven't gone
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> 2) Automatic unpushing of updates that haven't gone stable after X
> time (I propose 3 months/90 days here). That should be ample time to
> know if it's good/bad.
Could we make it go the other way, and submit the
On 12/13/2015 01:26 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
One part of this is that not a lot of people are using 7 compared to
6. This was sort of the case for EL-6 that didn't see a huge jump in
growth until CentOS had EL-6.3 . Second of all there isn't a lot of
people active in packaging stuff in
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> 2) Automatic unpushing of updates that haven't gone stable after X
>> time (I propose 3 months/90 days here). That should be ample time to
> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 02:34:33 +
> From: pbrobin...@gmail.com
> To: epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: [EPEL-devel] Improving EPEL updates process
>
> Hi All,
>
> So one thing I noticed when doing the ppc64le bootstrap is that
> there's a
>> So one thing I noticed when doing the ppc64le bootstrap is that
>> there's a bunch of updates that are a bit of a mess and there's a
>> whole bunch of run and dump in updates. There's everything from
>> updates with CVEs that are broken for a a long time [2], updates there
>> for 11+ months