On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:43:03AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >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. Um, ok. I disagree, but hey we'll just go in circles. >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 Personally, I don't care about meeting the needs of someone that wants to set their machine to auto-update so they can have warm fuzzies about it. We don't guarantee anything, we don't have official support contracts for Fedora, and as of right now we don't have the maintainer/QA/rel-eng manpower to even come close to making it safe to auto-update 100% of the time. >See what I mean? No choice is a choice. Sure. It's called 'sticking with the status quo'. Which isn't all or nothing as you seem to want to paint it. It's left in the hands of the maintainers. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
