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

[Mike McGrath]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:45:49AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > > Did you read what he wrote? I feel tempted to just copy the paragraph
> > > Kevin wrote again, because it already answers your question: Rawhide is
> > > not partly rolling as Fedora is.
> > > And a typical reason not to upgrade from F(current-1) to F(current) is
> > > because the major updates may make systems unusable, e.g. X not working
> > > anymore. But this does not mean that the same person does not want
> > > bugfixes for e.g. yum-builddep installing build dependencies again.
> > >
> >
> > This doesn't make sense.  They either update at the end of a release or
> > the begining or middle, still, they have to update or live with an
> > unsupported system.  It's not like you can not upgrade to F current for
> > very long.
>
> It allows to fix the bug in F(current) for 7 months until the user needs
> to upgrade from F(current-1). And then he could also skip one release
> and have a higher chance of the bug being fixed. Nevertheless, this is
> just a description of the situation. I like it more to have bugs fixed
> in F(current) at the cost of not fixing that much bugs in F(current-1)
> to keep it stable.
>

So when Fedora 12 came out, we allowed users 7 months to upgrade because
the latest version of stuff is too unstable for them.  At the same time
we're also forcing them to upgrade to the latest versions of those
packages in F-11 anyway?  I hope you can at least acknowledge why I'm not
following the logic here?

	-Mike