Where are we going? (Not a rant)

[Michael Scherer]

Le samedi 08 décembre 2012 à 09:32 -0800, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Sat, 2012-12-08 at 17:31 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
> 
> > > In my opinion the vision needs to be changed. It feels like Fedora has turned into 
> > > Rawhide more than Fedora with 17 and even more so with 18. 
> > 
> > You mean like people who are pushing features
> > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MATE-Desktop ) directly on all
> > stable releases ( https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-desktop
> > ), despites being frowned upon by the policy :
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#All_other_updates , who
> > was part of the vision that the board proposed :
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision ) ?
> 
> In general, adding packages in an update is actually a fairly safe thing
> to do, as it's very unlikely to disturb any existing setups unless some
> of those packages somehow provide stuff existing packages might depend
> on. You have to explicitly install the new packages in order to be in
> any way 'affected' by them. I thought the updates policy mentioned this,
> but I can't find it any more.

While I have no problem with pushing new packages to stable release, in
this case, my point is there is a version upgrade from 1.4 to 1.5 ( but
yes, i didn't clearly epxressed myself on this part ). Just take for
example mate-desktop :

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-desktop 

Mate 1.4 is the stable release, 1.5 is the development release,
following the same version numbering as GNOME. Even if that's not
explicitly said, there is no 1.5 on the roadmap
( http://wiki.mate-desktop.org/roadmap ), and people keep talking of the
1.6 as being the next stable.

For example, 1.5 have been converted from mate-conf to gsettings, from
corba to dbus, etc. And there is a few deprecated stuff that should
disappear sooner or later.

So yes, that's pushing a development version on stable release, ie,
using stable release as rawhide.

Now, if that's good or not is not what I am discussing, it is the
contradiction between saying "we should not do that", and doing it.

-- 
Michael Scherer