Adrian Schröter
Yes. This is not a big problem (except for storage), but the question is we want to force the user manually to switch repos on updates.
I think in most cases a :Stable and a :Unstable makes more sense.
Let me try to understand what that means. So I release some software, Bar-o-meter, 1.0. I've released and tested Bar-o-meter with some other project Foo-foo, Version 1.7, which is what's currently in Foo-foo:Stable. Now Foo-foo:Stable is updated to 2.0, which breaks APIs. Now I have two bad choices: * fix my package *right now* and hope nobody has used the broken repos in-between, no matter what I've originally planned doing now. * copy the base packages in a version that works into my project to be safe from such intrusive changes. If, however, the release is tagged with some api version, then I've pointed to Foo-foo:Release-1.7 or Foo-foo:Stable-1.7 and I'm safe. Or maybe Foo-foo:API-1.7? I'm bringing this up because we've had exactly this problem when rails was updated to 2.0 and that broke packages like our obs packages. S. -- Susanne Oberhauser +49-911-74053-574 SUSE -- a Novell Business OPS Engineering Maxfeldstraße 5 Processes and Infrastructure Nürnberg SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org