Juha Tuomala wrote: > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> You're distorting the Fedora model to accommodate KDE roadmaps. >> >> No, this goes far beyond KDE. KDE roadmaps are just one strong argument >> for doing things this way. Many more packages benefit or would benefit >> from version upgrades during a release. > > In my undestanding, KDE makes new feature releases (b releases) and > bug fix releases (c releases), where versions are kde-a.b.c. > > How is that 'one strong argument for doing things this way' in > fedora where new features are added into new Fn releases? The strong argument is that KDE and Fedora release cycles are not in sync and our users would thus have to wait months for the new KDE. > I talked to rdieter about this and said that part of the problem > is that not all of the bug fixes end to bugfix releases and would > be thus ommitted from stable fedora releases. Being a pure KDE > upstream problem, it should be solved there and would certainly > get more focus if fedora would start enforcing it. I doubt it. Other distros are already much more conservative than we are, that doesn't prevent this from happening. So that's another argument for the upgrades. In fact, KDE upstream doesn't even provide any further bugfix releases for the old branch after releasing the new one, they just don't have the resources to do that. So upgrading is the only way to continue picking up fixes. > Your current proposal: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Stability_Proposal > still fails in that part. It's a compromise. Under that proposal, we'd push only one KDE upgrade per release instead of 2, and you'd have to upgrade to the latest released Fedora to get the latest KDE. (And FWIW, I prefer the current system where we also upgrade the previous Fedora, for the reasons outlined in that proposal under "The cons" – and yes, I know the points about KDE 4.4 and Qt 4.6 are outdated.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
