On 03/12/10 18:06, Somebody in the thread at some point said: >>> In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps, you're a >>> "developer", not a "user", so the above sentence obviously does not >>> apply. Instead, my original point does (you'll be compiling your >>> own software very often anyway). >> >> It's a bit of a false dichotomy because I may be developing my stuff >> and using someone else's, but I take your point. > > You can call it a straw man, no problem calling things as they are. > > I love people quoting other people slightly out of context and putting > their spin on it to make a point ... My dear Simo your IFF is malfunctioning. "I take your point" is me agreeing that I took his words out of context when I went back and read what he clearly quoted. Having understood his larger point, I don't think splitting people into "developers" and "users" is a worthwhile distinction because all developers are users of something else. At the company I am working for this whole subject has been a matter of great debate these last days about the best way to update our own stable packages for our own repo on top of a Fedora basis, by focus on backport or elevating our equivalent of rawhide into stable after thorough testing. AFAICS the best way through it is a mixture depending on the exact situation of each package and the divergence in the sources and libs. If a fix we would like to have in stable is dependent on new APIs in uplevelled libs, backporting becomes Hell given the need to retain the old APIs for packages that don't get updated while integrating new ones for the fix. It pushes me towards thinking a solution by bringing in the new libs and accepting the damage in terms of uplevelling and retesting the users of the library can often be the right way. And that seems to be Kevin's POV which is why I was surprised to misread what I misread. -Andy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
