List Info

Thread: Re: Release farkage potential




Re: Release farkage potential
country flaguser name
United Kingdom
2007-09-08 14:50:23
Roger Peņa wrote:
> Well, I definitly can't see how the "3
sub-release
> deep" (4.5.x and 5.0.x, and so on) can work in
the
> actual tree and procedure

the sub-releases will be like :

5.0.1 + 5.1.0 being released at the same time, and being the
2 release trees for 
CentOS-5 till such time as :

5.0.2 + 5.1.1 + 5.2.0 are released at the same time, which
are then the 3 
sub-releases for CentOS-5 till such time as :

5.0.3 + 5.1.2 + 5.3.0 are released at the same time.

I hope this clears things up. There is no such sub-release
plan for CentOS-4 ( 
that I am aware of )


> break the now procedure to "hardlink"
directory 4 -->
> 4.<lastversion> 

that raises 2 angles to the same problem.

1) should people be moved along normally, as we do now, by
/5/ always pointing 
at the latest version / newest set of packages - and let
users opt-in to staying 
within a sub-tree, so they would need to manually choose to
stay on 5.0.x when 
5.1.x is released.

2) We change the behavior completely and have /5/ only stay
within the same 
sub-release, so when 5.1.0 is released, /5/ only points at
/5.0.x tree. users 
would then need to make the manual choice of moving their
machines to 5.1.x tree.

Personally, I would like to go with what we have in place,
and have /5/ always 
reflect the latest ( highest number ) release within 5.x.x .
This is also less 
likely to cause orphaned machines when sysadmins dont make a
choice at the end 
of life for a sub-release ( eg. 5.0.3 comes to an end, where
do they go then ? 
since 5.3.0 would have now been released, and the changeset
from 5.0.3 to 5.3.0 
might be fairly large ). So I am going to vote for (1)
above.

-- 
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ :
2522219icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Re: Release farkage potential
user name
2007-09-10 17:47:06
On 9/8/07, Karanbir Singh <mail-listskaran.org> wrote:
> Roger Peņa wrote:
> > Well, I definitly can't see how the "3
sub-release
> > deep" (4.5.x and 5.0.x, and so on) can work
in the
> > actual tree and procedure
>
> the sub-releases will be like :
>
> 5.0.1 + 5.1.0 being released at the same time, and
being the 2 release trees for
> CentOS-5 till such time as :
>
> 5.0.2 + 5.1.1 + 5.2.0 are released at the same time,
which are then the 3
> sub-releases for CentOS-5 till such time as :
>
> 5.0.3 + 5.1.2 + 5.3.0 are released at the same time.
>
> I hope this clears things up. There is no such
sub-release plan for CentOS-4 (
> that I am aware of )
>

Actually.. that was in the air when we talked with sales..
the
reasoning for calling it 4.6 versus 4U6 was to look at
allowing that
to happen... however it might be too much work and not
enough
customers.

>
> > break the now procedure to "hardlink"
directory 4 -->
> > 4.<lastversion>
>
> that raises 2 angles to the same problem.
>
> 1) should people be moved along normally, as we do now,
by /5/ always pointing
> at the latest version / newest set of packages - and
let users opt-in to staying
> within a sub-tree, so they would need to manually
choose to stay on 5.0.x when
> 5.1.x is released.
>
> 2) We change the behavior completely and have /5/ only
stay within the same
> sub-release, so when 5.1.0 is released, /5/ only points
at /5.0.x tree. users
> would then need to make the manual choice of moving
their machines to 5.1.x tree.
>
> Personally, I would like to go with what we have in
place, and have /5/ always
> reflect the latest ( highest number ) release within
5.x.x . This is also less
> likely to cause orphaned machines when sysadmins dont
make a choice at the end
> of life for a sub-release ( eg. 5.0.3 comes to an end,
where do they go then ?
> since 5.3.0 would have now been released, and the
changeset from 5.0.3 to 5.3.0
> might be fairly large ). So I am going to vote for (1)
above.
>

I agree and would like to vote for 1


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a
good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of
Venice"
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

[1-2]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )