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

Re: Lack of update information

Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 18:05 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
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...

But Fedora /releases/ aren't your personal rawhide.  We're providing
releases that are supposed to stay somewhat stable, not to just be a
dumping ground for whatever upstream chooses to drop the day before.  We
have a developmental stream for that, and it makes releases fairly
often.  I just don't understand why we want to treat our /release/
branches as if they were just another rawhide.

Where did I say that? If you read what I said above, I said that releases should be for tested packages that the maintainer considers sand to push to a release. I also said that "sane to push to a release" should not mandate a bug report being filed.

The current update rate works well for me and has a lot to do with why I chose Fedora (particularly over RH, which I was using before, which is absolutely horrible at being out of date, and for which I had to either roll all sorts of packages by hand or else pull in half of Fedora anyway). Do you consider what we currently have to be no different from rawhide?

Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.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]