[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: KDE vs. GNOME on F10



On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway<tcallawa redhat com> wrote:
> On 08/05/2009 04:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> The question is whether Fedora intends to be a distribution suitable for
>> day-to-day general purpose use by people who are not necessarily that
>> interested in Fedora per se - whether it's got an aim to be a
>> general-purpose operating system like other distributions do - or not.
>> That's the only framework in which you can sensibly answer whether we
>> want a stable update set or not, to my mind.
>
> What does a "stable update set" mean? Does it mean updates which don't break
> ABI/API? Does it mean backporting patches and not permitting new versions as
> updates?
>
> I seriously doubt that anyone is pushing updates simply to push them in the
> current Fedora model. Maintainers are pushing updates because they feel
> there is a reason, a bug fixed, a security hole closed, a significant
> feature enhancement that users want (or that they think users want).
>
> Without a finer definition here, it's all just hand-waving.
>

The whole thing is useless, maintainers should decide whether the risk
of pushing foo-x.y.z is worth the gain or not.

Threads like this are IMHO useless "why can't you update bar, foo has
been updated to foo+1" ... well each maintainer has a reason why he
does a update or not, while asking for the reasons is not wrong
demanding a policy (bureaucracy) on when to update what an for which
reasons will as Josh already said "just piss people off".


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]