On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 11:27 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 21.04.2010, 20:33 -0400 schrieb William Jon McCann:
> So, that's cool. I take it back - let's not limit pointless updates -
> it is certainly a silly idea. ;)
IF they are pointless, they should be limited to 0. If they are just
optional, there are still users who want the latest and the greatest
versions. During the whole discussion about the update process we
learned that this is one of the main reasons why many people prefer
Fedora over other distributions.
I think the one thing we learned is that Kevin can write more emails and
shout louder than anybody else. I challenge you to find a single Fedora
user who only uses Fedora because it can produce more untested updates
than any other distribution.
Sorry, but to me this attitude sounds arrogant. People "just
something" - especially GNOME people - is not how community works and
often is the source of a very unpleasant update experience.
Sure, doing something works by gathering a rough consensus between the
major parties and then start doing something. Waiting for the great
world-spanning consensus of everybody is a recipe for endless flamewars
and doing nothing.
Think of the recent hal update that broke every desktop but GNOME in
F13. It was not announced (at least not for F13) and it was pushed
after the beta freeze only for the GNOME people to finish their hal
removal feature. Is this your idea of just doing "great things"?
I'm pretty sure we can find one or two broken update that you have
pushed in the past as well. Do you really think we should sink to that
level of discussion ?