On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 16:12 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:17:39 +0200
Sven Lankes <sven(a)lank.es> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
>
> > I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
> > oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing
> > things differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are
> > either more or less neutral or positive towards this new change?
>
> I don't think that this about the KDE SIG at all.
>
> Not everyone is as passionate (or stubborn) as Kevin.
I agree.
> Most fedorians I talk to are watching all the discussions to see if
> the fedora that is currently being formed with all the changes that
> are happening is still a distribution that they're comfortable
> contributing to. And as the only way to get heard is to fuel a
> flamewar on fedora-devel they just stay silent.
I think the flamewars are making people think this is a bigger deal
than it really is.
> > [...] I'm for more testing and more conservative update policy in
> > general in stable branches.
>
> I don't oppose the ongoing changes in general but still - when I read
> through fesco meeting logs I am often disappointed by the amount of
> politics going on and more than once I wished that FESCO as a whole
> would grow a pair.
Can you expand on that? I'm not sure what you mean...
> I for one have decided that I'm going to stop contributing if the
> 'Stable Update Vision' is going to be implemented as currently
> discussed. If the powers that be are going to stop maintainers from
> issuing updates that are not security or bugfix updates then fedora
> will have turned into a distro that I'm not interested in.
Bring your concerns to the Board that issued the vision statement?
I personally think the "just security and bugfixes" is too strong.
I am going to try and push for an exceptions process that takes into
account upstreams that don't release in a way thats compatible with
fedora's release cycle.
I think that a distinction can be made between core packages that many
different components depend upon versus "leaf" packages that do their
own thing and no other component relies on. I do think we should be
conservative when updating core components in released versions of
Fedora; with rawhide much less so. But perhaps "leaf" packages can have
a less conservative policy.
When it comes to package updates, I don't think "one size fits all". I
wrote up some notes on other possible variables that should be
considered back in March here:
http://dmalcolm.livejournal.com/5013.html
My hope is that it ought to be possible to take the variables I mention
in that blog post and come up with some kind of coherent policy that
everyone is happy with, or, at least, not unhappy.
I hope you won't be hasty and will try and work with whatever
framework
we end up with and help us adjust it.
Agreed
Hope this is helpful
Dave