On 03/05/2010 06:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> I suspect that the Fedora policy, as stated, makes the most sense for >> most people who use Fedora. There is no rule against pushing new >> package releases to updates, but they're not pushed unless there's a >> good reason. >> > Agreed here as well. Proper emphasis on "reason" -- there should be > a reason other than upstream has a new release but there's a lot of > leeway for the maintainer to decide if the reason::risk ratio is > okay. OK, so we are on the same page. >> Fedora is a really good full-featured Linux distro with >> an aggressive release cycle, even without a continuous >> drinking-from-a-firehose updates policy. > > This is where I'm a bit confused.... AFAICS, no one has pushed for > a drink-from-the-firehose policy. Really? Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote about the "latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora." Thomas Janseen was arging against Rahul Sundaram's perfectly reasonable reminder of the current package update guidelines. >>> So i (and others who think like me), have no reason to use Fedora >>> over one of the other mainstream Distros if Fedora is the same. And >>> we will not get users like me if we dont offer that. Sure, there >>> might be people who dont give a darn about people like me. >> >> Well, that's a rather specialized taste. > And since I was lost at the previous step, I wonder here what you > think Thomas wants that's rather specialized. If you think it's > "drink from the firehose" and that == rawhide, I agree that that's > specialized. If it's semi-rolling updates, then I think that's not > so specialized at all. Perhaps not, but disagreeing with such an eminently sensible message as Rahul's makes me wonder. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
