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

[James Antill]

On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 00:58 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
> > So when Fedora 12 came out, we allowed users 7 months to upgrade because
> > the latest version of stuff is too unstable for them.  At the same time
> > we're also forcing them to upgrade to the latest versions of those
> > packages in F-11 anyway?  I hope you can at least acknowledge why I'm not
> > following the logic here?
> 
> Those packages we're upgrading in F11 are not the ones which are causing 
> their problems with F12. E.g. KDE 4.4 can't possibly be what prevented them 
> from upgrading to F12 because F12 originally shipped with 4.3.

 Mike didn't say that, Mike said that if a user was intentionally not
updating to Fedora 12 due to the newer KDE ... you've just removed that
choice from them. And for no real gain, as anyone who wanted to the KDE
update could easily move to Fedora 12 to get it.

 But after changing the question to one you think you do better at, you
are still wrong. The current state of play is (taking a random kde
example):

kdeutils F11 GA      4.2.2-4.fc11
kdeutils F11 Updates 4.4.0-1.fc11
kdeutils F12 GA      4.3.2-1.fc12
kdeutils F12 Updates 4.4.0-1.fc12

...so if someone tries to update from F11 (with updates) using an F12 GA
release DVD, it'll be an older version and I very much doubt you've
tested how well that works.
 Now sure, Fedora is forced to do this sometimes because we don't have
the manpower to backport all fixes ... but there's a _big_ difference
between being forced to do it some of the time and guaranteeing that the
firehose breaks it _every_ release for _every_ user.

-- 
James Antill - james at fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching