On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:55:23PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > There is one more thing. Very important thing. We have been pushing > > KDE releases asap so far, and although it hurt me at times (at school > > and at work), I like it. I don't blame people who don't. Here is the > > thing: The bugs need to be reported most of the time to get fixed. > > Fedora has been a pioneer in KDE development in this sense. If we > > don't push 4.x.0 releases to stable, the 4.x.1 will be more buggy, > > since not many distros do kde 4.x.0 updates to their stable releases. > > Someone has to make some sort of sacrifice but I cannot come up with a > > good-for-all resolution for this issue. > > If we are going down the road of providing absolute-latest-versions on > older releases, perhaps not pushing it to prior releases until it's > actually been in wide use on the next release? So, you have, for example: > > - new version 4.6 > -> push it to rawhide, get testing > -> get new Fedora release with that version > --> get *even more testing*, make needed fixes > > And only *then* do you push it to the prior releases, once it's actually > proven that it's not going to break things for the widest group of users. > It lets you not only use the rawhide adopters, who expect major change, > but the next-release early adopters, who also expect adjustments on moving > to a next major release. > There's multiple ways this could look since we have multiple repos. Does this look like you are imagining? 1) Build for rawhide, F-14, F-13 2) Push to updates-testing on F-14 and F-13 2.1) Testing period. If bugs are found and fixed go back to (1) 3) Push F-14 to updates/release 3.1) Testing period. If bugs are found and fixed go back to (1) 4) Push to F-13 updates. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp4NEaBu0Rwx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
