FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
opensource at till.name
Sat Feb 27 19:43:58 UTC 2010
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:45:49AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> > Did you read what he wrote? I feel tempted to just copy the paragraph
> > Kevin wrote again, because it already answers your question: Rawhide is
> > not partly rolling as Fedora is.
> > And a typical reason not to upgrade from F(current-1) to F(current) is
> > because the major updates may make systems unusable, e.g. X not working
> > anymore. But this does not mean that the same person does not want
> > bugfixes for e.g. yum-builddep installing build dependencies again.
> This doesn't make sense. They either update at the end of a release or
> the begining or middle, still, they have to update or live with an
> unsupported system. It's not like you can not upgrade to F current for
> very long.
It allows to fix the bug in F(current) for 7 months until the user needs
to upgrade from F(current-1). And then he could also skip one release
and have a higher chance of the bug being fixed. Nevertheless, this is
just a description of the situation. I like it more to have bugs fixed
in F(current) at the cost of not fixing that much bugs in F(current-1)
to keep it stable.
> So instead of choosing when to make their system unstable, parts of it
> become unstable throught the release without any coordination. I wake up,
> go to work, suddenly I've got a different version of KDE then I had
> yesterday. And you guys think that makes me think more highly of Fedora
> and not less?
Afaik the KDE updates work very well and I know a fanatic KDE user who
cannot expect to wait for the next KDE update, because he knows of bugs
that are fixed in it. Usually he does not even need to report them,
because they are already in the KDE upstream bug tracker. So this
"release becoming unstable" is imho a little exaggerated, because nobody
is proposing to track unstable upstream releases/upstream SCM with
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100227/52b040f9/attachment.bin
More information about the devel