On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:46:58AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:23 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > Because EPEL has to be very stable, so additional time spent in testing is > > even better, for example for reasons you highlight below. I never said > > that packages should not go through testing in EPEL! But Fedora is another > > thing. > > The conclusion here is that it's OK for Fedora to be broken and unstable > in it's releases. I call bullshit. It is very much not OK for this to > happen. You haven't read my point. I said that the difference is that hot fixes for regressions are more likely to happen in Fedora. So I mean that allowing hotfixes in fedora may improve its stability -- especially for specialized packages that will never be tested by anybody else than the maintainer. While there is little point for hot fixes in EPEL. -- Pat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
