KDE vs. GNOME on F10

[Guido Grazioli]

2009/8/6 Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>

> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 17:23 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Adam Williamson<awilliam at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:36 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Well, I think it's really the same issue. The problem is one of
> > >> > expectation: we have two similar components, GNOME and KDE, in the
> same
> > >> > distribution, following different update polices - GNOME favours
> stable,
> > >> > KDE favours adventurous. This confounds expectation.
> > >>
> > >> I don't know that this is really the case.  KDE is rolling up a bugfix
> > >> release.  Gnome does bugfix releases.  Other than a difference in how
> > >> they number them, is there really that big of a difference in what
> they
> > >> are doing?
> > >
> > > It's not a bugfix release, it's a bit ingenuous to describe it as one.
> >
> > Except for the fact that it fixes *over 10,000 bugs*. [1]
> >
> > And I believe the word you are looking for is *dis*ingenuous.
> >
> > It's hard to believe KDE 4.2 had that many bugs...
> >
> > [1] http://kde.org/announcements/4.3/index.php
>
> I was actually reaching for another word entirely, but you're right that
> ingenuous makes no sense. :)
>
> A release that fixes bugs is not necessarily a bug fix release. A bug
> fix release is a release that _exclusively_ fixes bugs. So any bug fix
> release must fix bugs, but not any release that fixes bugs must be a bug
> fix release.
>


It's unlikely a project has no open bugs, so any update should fix a bunch
of
them; on the other hand it's rare to have software enhancement stopped just
to close bugs, in particular in big projects, if you want that you want
backporting.
By the way, i dont even think its safe to measure stability or completness
counting
bugfix releases or with release numbers, as you will find projects which get

released with major versions X.0 in an incomplete and unstable state, while
others
trying to accomplish the opposite.

That said, in this scenery:
F-x
- bugfix rel
- enhance rel
F-x+1 released
- bugfix rel
with no backporting and the aim to be leading edge, what's the point to skip

update 2? In the worst case, your Frel will hit (Flatest - 2) in about 12
months
and you will need to upgrade nonetheless





>
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>



-- 
Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli at gmail.com>
Via Parri 11 48011 - Alfonsine (RA)
Mobile: +39 347 1017202 (10-18)
Key FP = 7040 F398 0DED A737 7337  DAE1 12DC A698 5E81 2278
Linked in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/guidograzioli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090806/d12b1fc9/attachment.htm>