Once upon a time, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > I think the whole "stable update cycle" versus "semi-rolling update style" is > too black and white. For core packages / major desktop packages clearly a > "stable update cycle" is the right thing to do. Well, but reading this thread, it obviously isn't "clearly [...] the right thing to do." I think it is, and you think it is, but that is an opinion and many don't share it. > But for packages which are more nice packages, the right thing to do may vary. > What for example for a package which is not only added recently to Fedora, > but came into existence recently in general. There might be some new > upstream releases there which are not bugfix only but still very good to > have (think pre-alpha -> alpha -> beta steps). I do think that more people should work like how GNOME, Firefox, and some other things have been handled in the past, where the upstream release cycle doesn't quite match Fedora's. There have been a few cases where an RC or late beta has been put into Fedora during release testing, when the final upstream release is not scheduled to be released until around or just after the next Fedora release. As soon as the "gold" bits come down from upstream (and they can be tested!), they get pushed as an early update for Fedora. For example, OpenSSH is working towards the release of 5.4p1. I would like to see a snapshot in F13 for testing ASAP, so it can get wider testing. Now, it is likely that OpenSSH 5.4p1 will ship long before F13, but even if it didn't, I think it would be safe to ship a snapshot and push 5.4p1 as soon as it is released. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
