On 4/24/2010 11:23 AM, Steven Stern wrote:
> Agreed. If I want updates, let me have whatever's available when I look.
> However, give me the option to schedule the update check.
>
> That is, I get to decide when and how to handle updates. You (the
> maintainers and packagers) just keep pushing th
Agreed. If I want updates, let me have whatever's available when I look.
However, give me the option to schedule the update check.
That is, I get to decide when and how to handle updates. You (the
maintainers and packagers) just keep pushing them into the pipeline.
On 04/23/2010 08:51 PM, Mail L
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 20:11 -0500, charles zeitler wrote:
> Thoughts? What is the best way to accomplish these two things?
The best way is to leave it alone. Let the user decide when he wants to
update. I can't see what problem this is supposed to be the answer to.
If the Package Update thing is
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 20:11 -0500, charles zeitler wrote:
> I propose we look at two things right away:
>
> 1. Limit the frequency of non-critical updates to once per week in
> stable releases
This was brought up, here, a few weeks back, and rightly shot down in
flames for being a bad thing.
If
On Friday 23 April 2010 06:51 PM, Mail Lists wrote:
>Enhance packagekit to offer update on scheduling if it doesn't already
> do that - or set it to download but not update ... or whatever makes you
> happy like using cron.
>
I think PackageKit already does that. :)
>You're treeing up the
Hi:
>
> 1. Limit the frequency of non-critical updates to once per week in
> stable releases
Do not create client policy on the server side - it is way to
restrictive and wont satisfy the client needs of many.
And, not using the full bandwidth is very suboptimal. (Like a 30
minute lawn wate
Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law.
-- Forwarded message --
From: William Jon McCann
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:02:47 -0400
Subject: Updates next steps
To: Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop
Hey folks,
We discussed this a bit on IRC yesterday but
