FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Till Maas]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:16:18PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:49:00PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Mike McGrath  wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> Though, in theory, fewer updates means a higher percentage of them can be
> > >> tested which means quality goes up.
> > >
> > > Even if this might start another flamewar ... I like the idea of
> > > having less updates.
> > >
> > > The  "the version number changed so we need to update the fedora
> > > package" attitude needs to stop.
> > 
> > May I ask why? Can you elaborate on why there is such a "need"? Who
> > "need's this?

I hope people who are not the targeted audience of Fedora, because the
four foundations of Fedora (“Freedom, Friends, Features, First”) include
"first.

> lots of people. Some want to review changes manually and udpate only "important" 
> things, 

Imho it is easier to review small changes than big changes.

> Others don not have gigabit internet access all around the clock. I am trying to update 
> my Netbook over a mobile connection as I write this.

But why do you want to update your Netbook anyhow? And with yum-presto
the demand for high speed internet access is not that big.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100226/c0c5f6cf/attachment.bin