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

Re: 182 pending F11 stable updates. WTF?



Jud Craft wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating redhat com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 14:35 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>>> Why do we not force updates to Fedora X to always be N-V-R older than
>>> Fedora X+1?  We can use the Release tag to enforce this within a
>>> Version, and newer Versions shouldn't appear in older Fedora's until
>>> they've been in the newer Fedora first.
>> Your suggest would lead to not allowing F10's package versions to /ever/
>> be newer than what Fedora 11 ships with at GA.
>>
> 
> Question!
> 
> Why not force them to be "N-V" older, then?  Wouldn't that still allow
> for security updates?  (I assumed security updates were the
> minor-point-number -R packages).
> 
> So in essence, the F9 packages are set in stone when F10 is released,
> except for minor patches.  No new versions.
> 
We don't currently demand backporting skills from our maintainers.
Upgrading to a newer upstream release that fixes a problem is a valid
strategy.

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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