Re: Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?

[Tres Seaver <tseaver palladion com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jesse Keating wrote:
> So in the RHL space, the choice was clear.  Backport whenever possible.
> However the Fedora landscape is different.  "Upstream" Core does not do
> backporting, they more often than not version upgrade to resolve
> security issues.  Why should Legacy be any different?  If we want to be
> transparent to end users we should follow what "upstream" does.
> 
> Flames?  Thoughts?

- -1 to preferring upgrades.  FL is about 'stability', which is an
explicit non-goal for FC.  Except in cases where a backport is more
likely to create instability than an upgrade, we should prefer backporting.


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 202-558-7113          tseaver palladion com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEaNwf+gerLs4ltQ4RAi+HAKCS4ndoHA8hkicsUMwIwmZJH4t7dACfZzUp
wGPYc9TXtwNXeTYu/G8/9L0=
=K3Rd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----