On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway<tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/05/2009 04:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> The question is whether Fedora intends to be a distribution suitable for >> day-to-day general purpose use by people who are not necessarily that >> interested in Fedora per se - whether it's got an aim to be a >> general-purpose operating system like other distributions do - or not. >> That's the only framework in which you can sensibly answer whether we >> want a stable update set or not, to my mind. > > What does a "stable update set" mean? Does it mean updates which don't break > ABI/API? Does it mean backporting patches and not permitting new versions as > updates? > > I seriously doubt that anyone is pushing updates simply to push them in the > current Fedora model. Maintainers are pushing updates because they feel > there is a reason, a bug fixed, a security hole closed, a significant > feature enhancement that users want (or that they think users want). > > Without a finer definition here, it's all just hand-waving. > The whole thing is useless, maintainers should decide whether the risk of pushing foo-x.y.z is worth the gain or not. Threads like this are IMHO useless "why can't you update bar, foo has been updated to foo+1" ... well each maintainer has a reason why he does a update or not, while asking for the reasons is not wrong demanding a policy (bureaucracy) on when to update what an for which reasons will as Josh already said "just piss people off". -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
