2009/8/6 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx>
It's unlikely a project has no open bugs, so any update should fix a bunch of
them; on the other hand it's rare to have software enhancement stopped just
to close bugs, in particular in big projects, if you want that you want backporting.
By the way, i dont even think its safe to measure stability or completness counting
bugfix releases or with release numbers, as you will find projects which get
released with major versions X.0 in an incomplete and unstable state, while others
trying to accomplish the opposite.
That said, in this scenery:
F-x
- bugfix rel
- enhance rel
F-x+1 released
- bugfix rel
with no backporting and the aim to be leading edge, what's the point to skip
update 2? In the worst case, your Frel will hit (Flatest - 2) in about 12 months
and you will need to upgrade nonetheless
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 17:23 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:I was actually reaching for another word entirely, but you're right that
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Adam Williamson<awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:36 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Well, I think it's really the same issue. The problem is one of
> >> > expectation: we have two similar components, GNOME and KDE, in the same
> >> > distribution, following different update polices - GNOME favours stable,
> >> > KDE favours adventurous. This confounds expectation.
> >>
> >> I don't know that this is really the case. KDE is rolling up a bugfix
> >> release. Gnome does bugfix releases. Other than a difference in how
> >> they number them, is there really that big of a difference in what they
> >> are doing?
> >
> > It's not a bugfix release, it's a bit ingenuous to describe it as one.
>
> Except for the fact that it fixes *over 10,000 bugs*. [1]
>
> And I believe the word you are looking for is *dis*ingenuous.
>
> It's hard to believe KDE 4.2 had that many bugs...
>
> [1] http://kde.org/announcements/4.3/index.php
ingenuous makes no sense. :)
A release that fixes bugs is not necessarily a bug fix release. A bug
fix release is a release that _exclusively_ fixes bugs. So any bug fix
release must fix bugs, but not any release that fixes bugs must be a bug
fix release.
It's unlikely a project has no open bugs, so any update should fix a bunch of
them; on the other hand it's rare to have software enhancement stopped just
to close bugs, in particular in big projects, if you want that you want backporting.
By the way, i dont even think its safe to measure stability or completness counting
bugfix releases or with release numbers, as you will find projects which get
released with major versions X.0 in an incomplete and unstable state, while others
trying to accomplish the opposite.
That said, in this scenery:
F-x
- bugfix rel
- enhance rel
F-x+1 released
- bugfix rel
with no backporting and the aim to be leading edge, what's the point to skip
update 2? In the worst case, your Frel will hit (Flatest - 2) in about 12 months
and you will need to upgrade nonetheless
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli@xxxxxxxxx>
Via Parri 11 48011 - Alfonsine (RA)
Mobile: +39 347 1017202 (10-18)
Key FP = 7040 F398 0DED A737 7337 DAE1 12DC A698 5E81 2278
Linked in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/guidograzioli
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
