On Sunday 04 July 2010 22:57:54 Eike Hein wrote: > On 7/4/2010 6:59 PM, Eli Wapniarski wrote: > > On Sunday 04 July 2010 15:19:13 Eike Hein wrote: > >> On 07/04/2010 06:53 AM, Eli Wapniarski wrote: > >>> It is not unforseable that > >>> me you or someone else, on purpose or by accident or for whatever > >>> reason installs kdepim 4.5 on a production desktop. > >> > >> kde-unstable is not for production desktops. If kde-unstable were to > >> cater to production desktops, it would not be able to fulfill the pur- > >> pose it currently serves, which is to test software that is expected > >> to be part of the next Fedora release. > > > > I beg to differ. kde-unstable is branched off into next release and > > current 2 releases. It is there to test the schedualed to be released as > > part of the current working versions of Fedora. Otherwise, there would > > only be a rawhide version (currently F14) which is not the case. kdepim > > is schedualed never to be released. We may see version 4.5.1. If things > > go well. > > I found this paragraph to be really hard to parse and > am not sure if the following will answer the embedded > questions, but I'll try: > > kde-unstable usually contains builds of rawhide (or > rawhide-derived, if changes are necessary) specs for > the current stable releases, thereby allowing users > of those stable releases to test software that the > KDE SIG is preparing for the upcoming Fedora release > without having to test all of rawhide. > > Evidence for that is that kde-unstable frequently > contains software for which no main repo update for > the current release is intended to be submitted, e.g. > KOffice 2.x for the longest time was only there. > > Further confirmation would be found in Kevin Kofler's > mail in this thread (he's a KDE SIG member) or Thomas > Janssen's (another KDE SIG member) first mail to his > thread, where he interpreted your question about > whether kdepim 4.5 would be fit for the release cycle > as applying to rawhide. > > I mean, if multiple KDE SIG developers tell you you > are wrong, isn't that cause to go "huh, maybe I got > it wrong?" for you? > > I think that addresses your argument that if kde-un- > stable were for rawhide testing there would only be > a rawhide branch of it. > > > Eli I give up. Do what you want. My feeling is its a mistake. Eli -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
