* Buchan Milne (bgmilne@multilinks.com) wrote:

> On Tuesday, 5 October 2010 23:39:09 Tux99 wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, nicolas vigier wrote:
>

> > 3) I mentioned earlier that the packager would need to use good
> > judgement and not include major incompatible version changes
>
> You are aware that this is significantly more work than 'mdvsys submit -t
> 2010.1 --define section=main/backports $package' (after some minimal testing of
> course)?

This part of the discuss let me think something.

We have both some people wanting huge set of backport and other wanting
long life release w/o change except security/bug fix.

So, why not alternate both, 1 release with backports denied but long
life, and the 2nd with backports and update but during a shorter period.
(X.0 would be the new distro with backports, X.1 the one more servers
oriented or enterprise).

What do you think ?