On Sat, 09 May 2009 12:51:18 +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote: > Well, in this case updating F-10 3.1 properly would require updating a > load of other stuff as well with all the risks and work that entails. > But even if that wasn't the case I generally don't bump major versions > of OOo in a released product. I see our fedora release cycle as ones of > iterative stable complete releases, rather than one which has an > always-open pool of stable packages which always contains the latest > stable version of a package. i.e. F-10 was history as soon as it was > released, and F-11 is likewise almost dead to me already :-) Not that I > won't fix bugs in them, just that I don't see them as live development > releases. +1 With my user hat on I wish that policy was used more often in Fedora. In general regressions are far more annoying than missing features or already present bugs, and over the last 5 years I feel the rate of regression in Fedora has been somewhat higher than it should be, especially within a release. I like to see new feature updates (but not major changes) in the latest Fedora release because the distribution sells itself on being leading edge and I like that. Once a release has been superseded though (and F10 is so close to being superseded as it matters) I would much prefer a bug- fix only policy. Anyone who really wants shiny new toys will already be on the latest release (or if not will happily switch), anyone who wants to stay on the previous release probably wants a bit more stability in their lives. Cheers, Martin -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
