FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Sat Feb 27 13:48:42 UTC 2010

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:45:11PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> >>      
> > Those people should use a more conservative distribution. Try CentOS maybe.
> > Frequent updates are an integral part of the Fedora experience.
> >    
> There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of Fedora 
> and CentOS.  I strongly disagree that frequent updates are an integral 
> part of the Fedora experience.

I don't think that the point here is the stability of the distribution.
I am very in favor of a stable distro, and on that point, I think that
I side more with you than with Kevin K. But, in my opinion, having a
policy that renders pushing to stable harder is not a good move, at least
for many packages, since for those packages there is no real test 
done in updates-testing, and they are specialized packages so that
there little chance of attracting more testers.

Having such a policy for critical packages or packages with a large 
user base, and so a large number of testers, why not, but I don't think
that it should be a general policy. At least I know that for the packages 
I maintained (and you now maintain a fair share of those packages ;-), 
such a policy would have been very unproductive.

In fact, I think that I would be in favor of selecting a set of important
packages that would have specific procedures for update, but not for all
fedora packages. Good candidates would be rpm, kernel, yum, hal, X,
gnome libraries, gtk, kde libraries for the packages that are critical. 
openoffice, firefox, the gnome and kde desktops, fluxbox would certainly
qualify as huge userbase software that may also have more requirements
on updates testing since they are likely to attract users. But definitly 
not the packages with low userbase (for example, most of the scientific 
related packages, dockapps, xdm...).


More information about the devel mailing list