On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:29:00 -0500, Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 10:28 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Chris Adams wrote: > > > > > EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem. > > > > EPEL does not have a 6 month release cycle :) > > > > The 6 month release cycle means you need to hurry to get your stuff into > rawhide in time. It does not mean you need to rush out untested fixes to > a supposedly stable, released product. I'd say not even that. If you miss a release, there is one coming up in the not too distant future and it isn't a big deal. And if a few hardy soles want to look at your stuff early, it is often the case they can run the rawhide package on stable releases without too much effort. While people using Fedora may want the latest stuff, I doubt that most of them care about time scales less than a month (I assume I am an exception) unless there is a bug they care about. In which case they can use the bug report as a way to find an update more promptly. I think Fedora would be helped by an increase in the quality of packages that are in stable more than shaving a week or so off when normal updates make it into stable. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
