Les Mikesell wrote: > On 6/21/11 6:27 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> On 06/21/2011 11:48 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >>> make that choice, which is why I think the choice should be opt-out, not >>> in. It may be a matter of faith one way or another, but I think there >> A vast majority of these updates are not Security related, they are the >> BA / EA variety, and if there is a security issue - we can always push >> those packages into the regular /5/updates/ repo. >> >> quite a few people run private repo store's and they might not even come >> across any of the CR stuff; so major security issues *should* go into >> the regular /5/updates in an either and/or with CR > > I'd expect it to be common for the kernels and probably glibc's included with a > point release or soon thereafter to include security fixes. If you push those, > you have the biggest risk of affecting everything else - so what's the point of > isolating the rest? > All I can see is you pushing extreme case scenario on something that is good will of the devs to lower aggravation of people waiting for point release to be completed, with agenda to push for 2-days delay between upstream and CentOS point releases, knowing it can not physically happen. It's like watching my 2-years old nephew screaming for his bottle of milk even tho he can see his mother pouring it just in front of him. The packages that **can** be released faster *will* be released faster, those that could brake things will be held back, it is simple as that, at least in my book. I will even dare to speculate that main reason for people to opt-in for CR repo will be so they can see how many packages are finished and to see packages coming out so they do not freak out without a visible progress. Side affect will be that some of them will be able to busy them selfs with comparing against upstream packages. Ljubomir