On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 16:45 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > 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. I agree to an extent. However no matter how fringe the package, an improper requires or inadvertent provides can wreak havoc. I'd rather not see those go directly into the pending release. If these packages really don't care about the release, then perhaps the answer is to somehow figure out a way to have two rawhide streams. The rawhide of the pending release, and the rawhide of next, just like we do with CVS branches. That way your work can continue on the next rawhide, just ignoring the release all together. -- 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
