2010/7/4 Anne Wilson <cannewilson(a)googlemail.com>:
On Sunday 04 July 2010 22:15:41 Thomas Janssen wrote:
> 2010/7/4 Anne Wilson <cannewilson(a)googlemail.com>:
> > On Sunday 04 July 2010 13:19:13 Eike Hein wrote:
> >> Keeping the kdepim 4.5 beta out of kde-unstable would create a dange-
> >> rous precedent for the future by hampering what kde-unstable has up
> >> until now been used for, and thus limiting its usefulness for pre-
> >> release testing, and thus limiting testing.
> > I really can't see what the big deal is. All we're asking is that you
> > make sure it has a differentiated name - something like kde-pmTP would
> > do it - so that we don't get it as an update, but as a deliberate
> > choice. What's wrong with that request? And if you planned to do it
> > anyway, why can't you say so instead of mocking genuine concerns, as
> > several people seem to think is the way to reply
> Why kdepimTP?
A logical suggestion for a Technical Preview, thout it was obviously a
suggestion which makes your remark fatuous.
No, it's not a Technical Preview, but a beta1. And you better watch
your language. I'm not one of your hutchigutchis.
> If one don't want to test kdepim4.5 on a testmachine as
> you stated some people have, why have it installed along with
You know perfectly well that the ability to install alongside is simply that
either one could be chosen without impact on the rest of the SC. Of course3
it doesn't make sense to use both, so why are you suggesting that we are
idiots? The packages are tested to make sure they use the same dependencies,
I'm not suggesting you're idiots, just that you obviously completely
miss the point of kde-unstable, as Eli does.
If i would think you're idiots, i would write it clearly out. I don't
hide anything behind my words. So don't read between the lines but
what i write.
> If one is afraid of kdepim4.5, what is so hard to use: yum
> --exclude=kdepim update?
A lot - as I already remarked. Without some form of naming differentiation we
could not get any bug-fix or security update for kdepim 4.4 if we did that.
Why not? Do you run rawhide? If not, nobody holds a gun on your head
and says "update to kdepim4.5". We still speak about kde-unstable.
> And if i'm willing to test, i want to test everything,
> update from 4.4 to 4.5. That's part of testing.
> This whole thread gets slowly ridiculous.
It does indeed, seeing the lengthy fatuous defences and complete refusal to
give the assurance we need.
There's no assurance for rawhide or kde-unstable. If one can't/won't
handle it, keep the fingers off. Or i suggest to read *man yum* since
people don't want to accept the already mentioned: yum --exclude
> Test it or leave it.
Whether I choose to test it or not is my decision, not yours. If I can't
trust Fedora to follow the requests of the developers, I'll go elsewhere.
You still don't get it how rawhide and the release cycle or kde-unstable works.
Since it's your decision (and of course it is) wht you test or not,
what we put in our rawhide or kde-unstable is our decision not yours.
Dubium sapientiae initium