On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:47:24AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 08:01 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> >I don't want to get between the lines here (there are good arguments and >> >against updating Gnome and KDE for older releases) and I hate buzz-words >> >like "Corporate identity", but I find it more and more odd that one >> >doesn't know what to expect from Fedora, because similar sized things >> >(KDE and Gnome) are handled quite differently. >> >> Short of passing a policy that says no major desktop upgrades for stable >> releases, I don't see this changing. If we did pass that, I have a feeling >> it would piss off a lot of people. Passing the converse (always upgrade) >> would piss off just as many. >> >> I'm not that enthralled with starting a "who do you want to piss off today?" >> campaign for Fedora. > >We've had this discussion before, but to re-state my opinion: the only >sane way to handle this is multiple, discretionary update repositories. >A repository for security and stable bugfix updates, and a repository >for other updates - major version bumps whose purpose isn't solely to >fix a security issue or, with minimal changes, a clearly identified bug. > >It's more work, but it's the only workable consistent system that >doesn't restrict some maintainer from being able to do what they want to >do. A distribution with much fewer resources than Fedora (Mandriva) has >been using this system successfully, to the satisfaction of developers >and users, for several releases now. Care to write up a proposal on how this work-flow would look like? Without some of the details, I'm confused how one would avoid all kinds of weirdness from repo conflicts if you have multiple of these repos enabled. That, and the fact that everything is built from a single buildroot at the moment. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
