Bradley Baetz wrote:
> But the difference that I'm talking about is the difference between what
> happens during a particular release. If the only difference between a
> stable release and rawhide is for application rewrites, then all users
> miss out.
That's an assertion which has to be proven.
> Sure, but the maintainer can't balance the hardware thats fixed vs the
> hardware thats broken because the maintainer doesn't *know* which
> hardware will be broken by an update.
In the case of the kernel, in most cases they did, from Bodhi comments
during testing. The updates were pushed out to stable anyway.
> Possibly more threads, but how many people wanted KDE4.1 because it was
> the latest available, and how many had a specific bug or feature that
> they wanted fixed?
In the case of 4.1, there were indeed important bugfixes and important
features added, but that just justifies our pushing it. :-)
But looking back to 3.5, the reason that one was requested back in FC4 was
mostly "because it was the latest available". 3.4 did not have issues of
the kind 4.0 did, and people were still asking for 3.5 (and got it - I
think pushing 3.5 was the plan all along, Than just didn't get around to it
faster). So this phenomenon is not specific to 4.1.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
