Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

[Thomas Janssen]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 05:03 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land part.
>>
>
> It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
> parts.  If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary
> churn and one of the benefits ( think resource cost - infrastructure,
> mirrors etc)  of that is users with low bandwidth systems being able to
> take advantage of Fedora more.  While you can always brush off any
> suggestion with a position of "take it or leave it", it is importance to
> recognize that there is room for improvement.    If we didn't care about
> people with low bandwidth systems, we wouldn't be having yum-presto and
> LZMA compressed RPMS  So claiming that users with such systems should
> just go away doesn't fit into the development efforts already made to
> accommodate such users.

I agree there's room for improvement.

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium