See inline.
On 2019-01-07, 5:41 PM, "Dean Troyer" dtroyer@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:57 PM Young, Ken Ken.Young@windriver.com wrote: > The build team has been discussing the frequency of the build and how long they are maintained on the Mirror. Our initial ideas are capture here:
I think that generally looks good, thanks!
One clarification I have is with the release point builds. Do I read that right that if we have a 2019.05.1 release and then do a .2 the .1 would go away immediately?
As a user I would want to be able to get to my older install if I need to re-create a deployment. As a smart user I would have a local copy but I'm not always a smart user :) It is only because these are the releases we expect people to actually use and depend on that I think we need to be really conservative about removing them.
Think about our experiences with binary RPMs being replaced but we still want a specific version. This feels like the same issue only at a higher layer.
That is not the intent. Maybe I can make that clearer in the slides. What I meant to say is that both loads are available at the same point in the timeline. I could expose that as two lines both sitting in the same position. Both loads are available until that *release* ages out.
dt
--
Dean Troyer dtroyer@gmail.com