Mono - rfc for future developments

[Michel Salim]

2008/9/8 Paul <paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk>:
> Hi,
>
>> >> An alternative is that after a couple of months proving on rawhide, the
>> >> rawhide version is pushed to core.
>> >
>> > I admit I much prefer the latter method, it keeps the stack roughly the same
>> > accross releases which means our users have access to the latest bug fixes
>> > and a version that is supported by upstream. It also keeps the amount of
>> > code actively supported as low as possible. Aggressively pushing vetted
>> > versions of the Mono stack seems like the wisest plan to me. As a bonus, we
>> > also gain the ability to push the latest and thus often the only supported
>> > version of Mono using apps in our stable repos, something our users expect -
>> > just watch the Banshee mailing list, not only do our users expect the latest
>> > to be available but upstreams first reply to potential problems is nearly
>> > always to install the latest supported version.
>
> Sounds fair enough. I have no problems in doing the push...
>
>> I concur; the Mono stack seems to be monotonically (pun alert!)
>> increasing in usability, that the benefits of maintaining a single
>> Mono major version across our supported releases outweigh the
>> stability concerns.
>
> No. Stability is a major issue. Remember what rawhide is there for; it's
> the testing ground. I have no problems doing the mono packaging, wait a
> few months and then bounce it down to stable, but never at the cost of
> stability. Release versions need to be treated with cotton gloves as not
> everyone is as brave as us nutjobs!
>
Um, that was bad phrasing on my part. What I intended to say is that
new Mono releases tend to be good enough, that stabilizing any new
release in Rawhide for a few months would be good enough, and we don't
need to duplicate our testing efforts by packaging another different
version for F9.

Regards,

-- 
Michel Salim
http://hircus.jaiku.com/