Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
thomasj at fedoraproject.org
Fri Mar 12 12:27:31 UTC 2010
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.
Dubium sapientiae initium
More information about the devel