On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/05/2010 02:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote: >> >> Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part >> of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them "freedom friends >> frozen frustration" in the future ... >> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations > > The four foundations have really nothing to do with a claim that we > need to push new upstream versions as updates and yes while we are the > first to ship a lot of new features that should be primarily limited to > the time of the release and other distributions have given the choice by > providing a backports repository to satisfy the people who want the > bleeding edge stuff as updates > > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push > every upstream release into the updates repository > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines > > It might be different for leaf or niche packages but kde is a very big > update and the risk of regressions has always been high I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a BZ as well? I read about regressions as it would have been thousands every release (yes, that's exactly as it sonds). We DO test our stuff as mentioned as well over and over again. AND we grow slowly under the roof of Fedora. Part of that growing IS that we give our users what they want. I myself have/had only ONE single regression with the update to 4.4.0. And that's even a regression only a handful of users face, cross distro. The nepomuk problem some face is something that falls under, damn, that shouldn't happen, but sh!t happens. I saw a lot more and even terrible stuff happen in Fedora. I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently "stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills what Fedora stands for out there in the wild. To be a leading edge distribution. And dont come up again with rawhide. That's just ridiculous, because then i can run EVERY distro out there and use their rawhide/factory/cooker or whatever name they have. Leading edge doesn't stand only for "new technics adopted first". Another thing, since you throw that links about package_update_guidelines around, some maintainers should also check what software is my software built against and dont push broken software without testing to stable because of that "mistake" ;) Just to remind anyone, if you forgot, or dont know what Fedora stands for IN REAL LIFE, you might go out and check it. It stands exactly for what you terribly fight against. And people love it exactly for that. But sure, there's always the possibility to bend over and try as hard as you can to make something without an own identity..... And no, not a single sentence is written aggressively. More with a big *sigh* -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
