On Friday 03 November 2006 10:19, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > No, I think we should align out schedule to Gnome, as it is a crucial > part of our product. Uh, we do, or more specifically they align their schedule to our releases most often. > > > and Xorg releases > > Xorg: yes. The updates improve hardware support and are often needed to > get the latest Hardware running. And that's why I think why we should > ship them often (still needs to be decided on a case by case basis). > > > into > > updates in general release which is not really feasible if you want some > > form of stability. Rapid progress does not mean we can push everything > > into updates. > > Sure. That's not what I proposed. But if there are important things > missing (FF 2.0 in FC6; Already stated why this is a very bad idea. You get a '2' in the name, and you get to look at all your broken extensions. Not fun. > AIGLX in FC5, Decision made by the maintainer. > Gnome Update in FC4) FC4 is well Legacy now, and even at the time, it isn't desireable to make a huge update to that old of a release. (you were talking about the timeframe where FC5 was live, FC6 was in development, and FC4 was still getting some updates?) Personally I want to see a more formal update policy. Current release gets lots of updates maybe some version bumps for things like KDE/Gnome. N-1 gets less updates, more just bugfixes. N-2 and 3 are security only handled through the Fedora security team. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpbeUmBLbdjw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
