On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 00:05 +0400, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote: > Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Christian Rose wrote: > >> IMHO, Fedora needs more maintainers who think of whole releases as > >> stable release sets. > > > > "Stable release sets" doesn't mean "no updates", it means "no updates which > > break things". > > > > Normally, 3.0->3.1 type upgrades aren't the kind of updates which cause > > regressions or compatibility issues. > +1 > I fully agreed. Fedora is a bleeding edge distro. It is why I love it. > It sometimes got trouble, but it is. If we have distro with other policy > - please, RHEL, CentOS have it absolutely different - no updates until > it absolutely needed. > So, if 3.0 -> 3.1 update do not promise serious troubles - I want see it > in Fedora 10. Um, I'm a little confused. You want bleeding edge, and you see Fedora as a bleeding edge distro. You also want OOo3.1 backported from f11 to f10. If you're into bleeding edge, won't you get OOo3.1 when you upgrage to f11? And if you're not upgrading from f10, then your comments about bleeding edge can't be that serious. I think it's fair to assume that anyone using f10 is happy with it just the way it is, and don't desperately want the current version, and that if they aren't they will choose to upgrade (or cross over to another distro). As such, doesn't Caolan's policy make a lot of sense? R. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
