Lack of update information

[Matthew Woehlke]

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absolutely horrible at being out of date, and for which I had to either 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?

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Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.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