[fab] looking at our surrent state a bit

[Rahul Sundaram]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> I'm not saying we need it now. But a good solution for it might be
> "We'll ship FF 2.0 as a update for FC6 when it's a bit more matured and
> most extensions are ported; so at the end of the year probably. Until
> then you can get it in this special FC-6 add-on repo located on ours
> servers at ...."

This is already there. For detailed information 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Firefox2

> That's a excuse I hear to often these days (see gutenprint for example).
> That why I'd like to see a Fedora Core Steering Commitee that jumps in
> now and then.

In the case of AIGLX that wouldnt change anything. AIGLX status as a 
experimental add on repository means that it is not a priority.

> No. FC4 shipped with Gnome 2.10. 2.12 was never shipped by FC. 2.14 was
> in FC5. That 2.12 never was shipped in FC really sucked.

As I said earlier, putting major updates like this post release is a QA 
nightmare and should be avoided.

>> Personally I want to see a more formal update policy

There is a draft in the wiki that was included in the board update on 
Xorg 7.1

Rahul