[fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available

[seth vidal]

On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 13:38 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sunday 09 July 2006 13:34, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> > Then we need to have the sack to say "we're forking RPM," and take the
> > abuse that comes with it.  Because this half-assed selective uptake stuff
> > is just making us look bad.
> >
> > So is Fedora the tail that wags the dog here?  Do we just Take The
> > Decision, or do we try to figure out why RH engineering is unwilling to
> > take a public stance first?
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, the Fedora Board was discussing this very issue on 
> Friday.  I overheard as much.  I do not know what decisions were made, if 
> any, perhaps it would be time to get a report from the board regarding this.

Yes, we are. Paul forwarded the bug to fbl and asked us for our opinion.
We've discussed some. Speaking for myself a few others on the board (not
for the board as a whole) I think the suggestion that makes most sense
is stay where we are for fc6. It's too late in the cycle and the change
to 4.4.6 is too disruptive for right now.

Then in the next couple of months we make a decision on how we want to
progress fedora package mgmt and put that in place for fc7.

-sv