On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > 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. As many have stated, not all people *want* those feature updates to stable release. By pushing them by force, you remove the user's choice to do as (s)he wishes. >From those zillion posts past days I see that this is impossible to understand. >> 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. Upstream has written their own policy. It's their problem to follow it. > 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. Which is good reason to upgrade the Fedora release if those still open issues really bother the enduser. > 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. Pushing even one single feature release breaks the thing that fesco's new proposal is trying to achive. Nuff said from my part on this topic. Tuju -- Ajatteleva ihminen tarvitsee unta. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
