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

[Mike McGrath]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> Mike McGrath wrote:
> > You can't assume that people are only using software we ship.  If someone
> > is using software they've custom developed (think a webapp).  We've now
> > forced them to do work.  There's several use cases here, people building
> > and shipping appliances, webapps, etc.  Why would anyone agree to do
> > development and choose Fedora if the target they're building for can
> > change without notice?
>
> They already do. Our ABIs can already change without notice, and our policy
> is to only require a rebuild of the stuff in Fedora (and third-party
> repositories are expected to rebuild their stuff, for RPM Fusion we normally
> warn the affected maintainers beforehand). For custom-built stuff, whoever
> builds it is responsible for rebuilding it for dependency changes. It would
> be impossible to do even Firefox security updates (and many other important
> updates) otherwise! I don't see this as a problem at all.
>

I know they do.  I'm saying they shouldn't.  Yes, we'll fail sometimes.
That's not to say it shouldn't be a goal.  I updated KDE just today and it
left my taskbar all messed up [1] and I got weird Nepomuk errors that
required manual intervention to fix [2].

I went from 4.3.4 on January 19th to 4.3.5 on February 17th to 4.4.0 on
March 2nd.  That's too much, and this last one caused problems for me.
It would be good for you to at least acknowledge that with the new there is
bad or at least risk of bad.  Why couldn't I have waited 2 more months to
do the upgrade on my terms when I could have prepared for it.  I have
stuff to do today?  I don't use KDE as part of my job, I use KDE to
actually _DO_ my job.  It's a tool, not some fancy new toy.

	-Mike

[1] http://mmcgrath.fedorapeople.org/kde440-5.png

[2] http://userbase.kde.org/Akonadi#Nepomuk_Indexing_Agents_have_been_Disabled