On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote: > 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..... I think you're making a mistake. Surely there's a fundamental distinction between a distro that has the latest packages when released and a distro that has the latest packages all the time via updates. Even if Fedora didn't push new upstream versions via updates, it'd still be a very hot leading edge distro. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
