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

Re: Lack of update information



Jesse Keating wrote:
If everybody is just throwing the latest from upstream in whatever the
feel like it, what keeps a release from being more stable than rawhide?

Aside from upstream (hopefully) not being a mess, there is a difference between "this seems to work" and "what justification, besides that upstream has fixed bugs and added features, can I give to push this update"?

If a package seems to be non-broken and fixes bugs, that's good enough for me to update. (Of course, I'm also not in a limited-bandwidth situation, but...) Just because I haven't been bitten by a particular bug /yet/ doesn't make updating useless; maybe it saves me from being bit tomorrow.

Also, notice I didn't actually object to asking for better "what's changed" information. I objected to putting bureaucracy in the way of what Fedora currently is; a distro that tends to closely track upstream.

On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 17:29 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Should we not release any updates without a Fedora bug being filed asking to upgrade to the latest upstream?

That's actually not unreasonable.  The update process should be user
driven, as in a user needs or wants something specific from the new
upstream code, we don't just install a bot to throw whatever falls out
of upstream directly at our users whether they want/need it or not.

...except now I have to run around opening a ticket every time KDE bumps its requirement on CMake version, or libical version, or...

No, thanks.

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
find / -user your -name base -print0 | xargs -0 chown us:cats -- Unknown


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