On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 06:05 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > I strongly disagree with that idea, IMHO the version upgrades to released > versions are the main distinctive point of Fedora, many people (including > me) use Fedora for that very reason. You know as well as I do that "version" upgrades can be twisted to mean anything you want, depending on the upstream. The gist of what I'm trying to express distaste with is egregious update spamming just to have the highest number everywhere, rather than calculated updates balancing the risk of new code and the cost of bandwidth and storage vs what the latest number /actually/ brings to users. I mean, I just recently saw a maintainer build a package from F9,10, and 11 just to update a summary. Was that seriously worth a build? I haven't yet seen if the maintainer has queued up bodhi updates for that, but come on, seriously? That type of change can certainly wait until there is a more compelling reason to consume the resources of an update. > > And the problem in this thread wasn't even such an update, it was a security > fix! Even if it had been backported to D-Bus 1.2.4 instead of an upgrade to > 1.2.6, it would still have caused the same issue! So the problem we're > seeing has absolutely nothing to do with feature upgrades. While that's true of the originating topic of this thread, we've moved on to a more general discussion of how Fedora releases should be treated. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
