On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 18:27 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote: > 2009/1/26 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > But Fedora /releases/ aren't your personal rawhide. We're providing > > releases that are supposed to stay somewhat stable, not to just be a > > dumping ground for whatever upstream chooses to drop the day before. We > > have a developmental stream for that, and it makes releases fairly > > often. I just don't understand why we want to treat our /release/ > > branches as if they were just another rawhide. > > I doubt anyone here intentionally treats a release in the same way > it's acceptable to beat up rawhide with. There's a _huge_ difference > in sanely tracking upstream in a release and injecting potentially > massively unstable stuff in rawhide. > YOU may see it that way, however given some of the updates I've seen tossed at Fedora, spammed to every release including rawhide at the same time, with extremely little (often no) information about what the update is, and why users should process that update, I have a hard time believing that the maintainer base as a whole agrees with you. So yeah, I want to introduce a step where the maintainer actually has to think about why they are issuing this update, what value it brings to users, and what they should test for in order to help the maintainer know if the intended value was met or not. -- 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
