On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:16:35PM +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 02:41:40PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27:58AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
> > > +1 for pushing it.
> > > +1 for a updated version of virt-manager in fc8 too.
> > >
> >
> > If libvirt 0.4.6 is pushed for F8, I'll push the
> > latest virt-manager + virtinst as well.
>
> I think it is a bad idea to push major new versions of anything to a
> distro that is about to go end of life. We've only just released these
> new libvirt, virt-manager & virtinst packages. We *will* cause regressions
> in functionality in F8, and with it about to go end of life, we'll be
> unable to push further updates to fix the regressions.
>
> If someone really badly wants new libvirt/virt-manager for F8, then they
> can easily just take the new RPMs from F9/10 and do a rpmbuild --rebuild
> on the src. This avoids causing regressions for anyone else on F8 who
> don't care.
The other solution is to build the package in Testing and not push it
to Stable, like I did for libvirt, I think this minimize the risks while
avoiding the multiple builds (and hence risk of massive divergence of
the versions).
Leaving it in testing forever is a reasonable option, though my preference
is to not update at all. Old Fedora releases should just get bug fixes
and not major version updates - libvirt's almost OK because its ABI stable
and has no UI, but we have caused regressions due to introducing new bugs.
virt-manager has undergone major UI changes & redesign, and its really not
the kind of thing that should be pushed into stable Fedora releases.
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://ovirt.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|