On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 08:12:43AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > That's only if maintainers don't actually take the schedule and > development effort into consideration, completely ignoring the cycle and > only having "crap" packages in rawhide at the time of the freeze. If > they actually used good development practices, the packages in rawhide > at the time of the freeze would not be "crap", they would be the > packages they want in the release, and any changes would be to fix > unexpected bugs in those packages. Yes, for gcc, the kernel, glibc and other major components I'd agree. For new packages, it's surely better to have a new crap package than no package at all. After all, a new crap package *might* work for someone, but a missing package definitely won't. For packages that not many people use, and the sort of packages I'm doing (which are for developers who really should know what's what), a 6-month cycle of organized around delivery of a circular piece of plastic is fairly irrelevant. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
