Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
> rawhide?
"My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive. They're minor
feature releases which are backwards compatible at ABI/API level, which
don't remove applications (in fact, I packaged KPilot standalone because
upstream removed it from kdepim, I really care a lot about this kind of
things!), which don't remove features from applications, which don't require
any manual user interaction to perform, but which fix many bugs and add
several great features. They're exactly the class of updates I do NOT want
to lose.
> In the end, despite your repeated claims to represent the "Fedora way",
> it seems to me your preferred way of operation relies heavily on your
> group being almost the only one to follow it, and if others followed
> your lead you wouldn't be so happy about it. And that stinks. Fedora
> spent a lot of time removing those kinds of asymetric arrangements from
> its workflow.
Nonsense. I'm actually unhappy about some groups not implementing the same
type of policy. And no, we (KDE SIG) aren't the only one which does. E.g.
the kernel was upgraded in F12, and also quite often in the past.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
