On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 09:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >We either have to make it clear which policy we use and which policy we > >don't, and hence which theoretical user base we are not targeting, or > >take on extra work and try to satisfy both. I am not declaring myself in > > Actually, we could do nothing and be just fine. Let the users decide if and > when and what they want to update. Doing nothing is an implicit choice in favour of the adventurous option, with the disadvantage that we don't come out clearly and say it. It's rather hard to choose 'if and when and what' you want to update on a system that you only really talk to once a week that otherwise just sits there and does its job. For instance - a server, or a home theater box. I have both of these types of system. They're set to auto-update once a day, I don't spend my life logging into them by SSH, poring over the update list and deciding what to install. I can do this because the conservative update policy of the distribution they run gives me confidence that the updates won't break the things. I couldn't do that with Fedora, as there's no policy to give me the confidence that automatically updating such systems won't break them. As I've said, this isn't a _problem_ per se, but it means Fedora has a particular identity that we don't seem comfortable talking about - 'let's pretend not to make a choice' - for some reason. See what I mean? No choice is a choice. -- 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
