Update policies: What about *regular* updates?
christoph.wickert at googlemail.com
Tue Mar 9 19:55:25 UTC 2010
We are talking a lot about update policies recently. While I do (mostly)
agree with those who suggested a more conservative approach, I wonder
what will then happen to packages that actually *need* regular updates.
Let me give you two examples:
1. openal-soft: Is under steady development and improves a lot.
From time to time, I guess once a month, the maintainer pushes
an update. Usually this updates fixes at least one bz issue, so
I don't think it should be a problem with the new policy. I just
want to make sure.
2. Parrot/Rakudo: are released once a month. Our parrot feature 
in F12 not only means to have it in Fedora but to do regular
updates each month, because perl developers want to be able to
develop for the latest implementation of perl 6 while still
having a released version of Fedora as a solid platform.
How do these fit into the proposed guidelines? Will maintainers be able
to push these updates without having to explain themselves?
More information about the devel