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

Re: [fab] looking at our surrent state a bit



On Friday 03 November 2006 10:19, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> No, I think we should align out schedule to Gnome, as it is a crucial
> part of our product.

Uh, we do, or more specifically they align their schedule to our releases most 
often.

>
> > and Xorg releases
>
> Xorg: yes. The updates improve hardware support and are often needed to
> get the latest Hardware running. And that's why I think why we should
> ship them often (still needs to be decided on a case by case basis).
>
> > into
> > updates in general release which is not really feasible if you want some
> > form of stability. Rapid progress does not mean we can push everything
> > into updates.
>
> Sure. That's not what I proposed. But if there are important things
> missing (FF 2.0 in FC6;

Already stated why this is a very bad idea.  You get a '2' in the name, and 
you get to look at all your broken extensions.  Not fun.

> AIGLX in FC5, 

Decision made by the maintainer.

> Gnome Update in FC4)

FC4 is well Legacy now, and even at the time, it isn't desireable to make a 
huge update to that old of a release.  (you were talking about the timeframe 
where FC5 was live, FC6 was in development, and FC4 was still getting some 
updates?)  Personally I want to see a more formal update policy.  Current 
release gets lots of updates maybe some version bumps for things like 
KDE/Gnome.  N-1 gets less updates, more just bugfixes.  N-2 and 3 are 
security only handled through the Fedora security team.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

Attachment: pgpnzUmdIMuhj.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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