-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > So in the RHL space, the choice was clear. Backport whenever possible. > However the Fedora landscape is different. "Upstream" Core does not do > backporting, they more often than not version upgrade to resolve > security issues. Why should Legacy be any different? If we want to be > transparent to end users we should follow what "upstream" does. > > Flames? Thoughts? - -1 to preferring upgrades. FL is about 'stability', which is an explicit non-goal for FC. Except in cases where a backport is more likely to create instability than an upgrade, we should prefer backporting. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEaNwf+gerLs4ltQ4RAi+HAKCS4ndoHA8hkicsUMwIwmZJH4t7dACfZzUp wGPYc9TXtwNXeTYu/G8/9L0= =K3Rd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
