Gerald Henriksen ghenriks at
Mon Sep 27 03:04:12 UTC 2010

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:33:25 +0200, you wrote:

>On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Gerald Henriksen <ghenriks at> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:41:38 +0200, you wrote:
>>>On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:53:49 -0400
>>>> Brandon Lozza <brandon at> wrote:
>>>>> It would be nice to list it somewhere as an exception, to avoid
>>>>> panics :)
>>>> Well, I personally do not want to say:
>>>> "Hey, anytime you like down the road, you get an exception to push a
>>>> new major version. Have fun".
>>>Well, reading FESCo meeting, it was that we're allowed to do one major
>>>update to Fn due to the different release-cycles of Fedora and KDE.
>>>Bad enough that we need "exceptions" to do our expected work and be
>>>able to be the working official KDE part of Fedora.
>> Perhaps then you should approach KDE and ask them why they are so
>> distribution unfriendly with their release schedule.
>Why should they align the releases more with Fedora? Because Fedora is
>the #1 KDE distro? Think about it. KDE isn't distribution unfriendly.
>Fedora lately becomes KDE unfriendly. *Please* stop to rant, all the
>ranting becomes old quickly.

Perhaps you should read the part of my message you deleted, I never
said they should align their release with Fedora.

What I said was that KDE specifically goes out of their way to make it
difficult for the distributions to get the latest KDE release to the
KDE users by using a schedule that does not fit with *any* of the big
three distributions.

If the KDE project is concerned about getting their releases out to
their users in a timely manner then they should time their releases to
suit a distribution - whether it be openSUSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, or any
other distribution that makes them happy.

What does matter to Fedora is having an updates policy that is
designed to minimize disruption to users during a release is pointless
if a significant part of Fedora - KDE - is going to be allowed to
ignore the updates policy and deliberately introduce visible to the
user changes in the middle of a release.

How can Fedora market itself to potential users as a stable choice,
but at the same time warn that if you use either KDE or any of its
included programs then you can expect changes?

It can't.

And we already have proof of this with the message from the user who
won't update when a new version of Fedora is released, but instead
will wait until after the disruptive KDE update to (in his own words)
"avoid having important programs change under my feet when I'm not

The updates policy has to be consistent across all of the projects
that make up Fedora, both to allow a consistent message to the users
(both current and prospective) of Fedora as well as to be fair to all
of the projects.

Do I want Fedora to change to bring some sanity to updates and stop
disruptive changes mid-release?  Yes.  But if FESCO, the Board, etc.
feels that allowing KDE or any other project to make changes
mid-release is important then fine, but just be consistent with the
message and treat all of the projects equally.

More information about the devel mailing list