Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Peter Boy <pboy at barkhof.uni-bremen.de> said:
> Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 15:31 -0600 schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
> > Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > > I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
> > > argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.
> > 
> > +10 to that!
> 
> Indeed!! 

Because there are conflicting goals between maintainers of major
componenets.  We have major things like GNOME and Firefox, where updates
are generally kept to minor release updates, avoiding major changes
during a Fedora release cycle.  Then we have major things like KDE,
where every new version is pushed to all current Fedora releases as
rapidly as possible.

The argument is that Fedora should aim to have a single update policy,
so that users can know what to expect (without having to know the
different policies of different sets of maintainers).

The argument started because, after a bad update, FESCo talked about
trying to get more testing before pushing updates, and Kevin Kofler
started a flame war here to "rally support" against a non-existant
proposal he didn't like.
-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.