Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?

[James Kosin]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jesse Keating wrote:
> 1, 2, and 3, are totally great points for backport vs upgrade.  I
> don't even begin to think that upgrading is a better solution.
> However I'm going for consistency with what our 'upstream' is
> doing.  The Fedora project doesn't backport when it isn't easy,
> preferring to upgrade.  I'm proposing that when we take over
> maintenance we do the same, when easy.
>
Ok, but then how difficult?  One person's idea of difficult could be
raising a finger to type something.  Now we are going to have to
define what is considered easy and what is difficult.  I do agree we
need a fall back option when patching is not easy or fixing the
problem is too difficult, but we need to guard against it being the norm.

Take what I've done with the FC1 packages I have...  most are updates
only in as far as the packages have the same major and in most cases
minor version numbers as the FC1 counterparts.  I have GCC 3.3.6 even
though 3.4 and 4.x exist and are available.  I just don't see the
point in going that far ...  granted, GCC 3.3.6 was EOL and
unsupported past the point I downloaded and patched into FC1.
Believe me, the upgrade was anything but EASY!

- -James
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEafDHkNLDmnu1kSkRAtmXAJ9VZlWOXFziK1qq2uirSfG2hda5GACfZqZN
PZweidIPMJkkuT9AOkUiBGs=
=Q6F/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net