On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 17:59 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Caolán McNamara wrote: > > But even if that wasn't the case I generally don't bump major versions > > of OOo in a released product. > > Is 3.0 -> 3.1 really that major? I must say I prefer the way packages like > the kernel or KDE are handled, where this kind of updates are pushed. I've a different view on that though, I really don't like the constant kernel update train. From my perspective every update that goes out is like an admission of failure that we didn't get it right at the time of release :-) I'm a little puzzled that people appear a little disappointed that OOo 3.1 isn't intended to be pushed back to F-10. This is the devel list, so presumably everyone here has it looking at them on their rawhide boxes already. F-11 is only a couple of weeks away from release, and so everyone can move from stable F-10 to stable F-11 and get it then. I mean, its a perfectly fine position to take that there should be a "stable" distribution that consists of a rolling set of constant stable updates and upgrades, but if Fedora is one of those why do F-10/F-11/etc releases at all ? And if the Fedora cycle was so long that the time between releases meant that applications got very stale between releases then I'd be all in favour of some sort of means of getting OOo 3.1 out to the people, but its a fairly short cycle of roughly equal length to the OOo one. C. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
