On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, drago01 wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Peter Jones wrote: >> > >> >> On 07/28/2010 02:25 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Peter Jones wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 07/28/2010 01:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> >>> On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 11:37 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> >> >>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:04:46PM +0200, Florent Le Coz wrote: >> >> >>>>> On 28/07/2010 14:52, Mike McGrath wrote: >> >> >>>>>> In my opinion including software that even upstream says is not ready is >> >> >>>>>> for a distribution that's "lost their way". We can still be a leading >> >> >>>>>> distribution and not include pre-release software. Especially pre-release >> >> >>>>>> software that's not only in our critical path, but also something that >> >> >>>>>> almost all of us use every day. >> >> >>>>> I agree, but doesn't that mean that Firefox 4.0 won't be available in >> >> >>>>> F14 at all and will only be in F15? >> >> >>>>> I think it would be a huge drawback for Fedora 14. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> It would be huge if there people who can't live without it didn't have >> >> >>>> any other way of getting it than having it pre-packaged. I think >> >> >>>> Firefox 4 looks to be fantastic, but the truth is that people only >> >> >>>> have to wait a few months for a release with it pre-packaged, if >> >> >>>> they're not able to add it on their own. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I'd rather we provide them a package than have people going out and >> >> >>> installing software from third-party sources (yes, mozilla.org is hardly >> >> >>> Evil, but it sets a bad precedent). I really don't see much of a reason >> >> >>> we can't ship it as a post-release update. We'd probably want to do that >> >> >>> in the end anyway, because Mozilla tends to stop security supporting old >> >> >>> branches anyway; it's certainly plausible that they stop supporting 3.x >> >> >>> during F14's support lifetime. >> >> >> >> >> >> Just because it isn't in the F14 repo doesn't mean it won't be available to >> >> >> people who really want a packaged version earlier - look at spot's chromium >> >> >> packages, for example. And I really expect the F14-F15 time frame to be a very >> >> >> similar situation with Firefox - just because it's released doesn't mean there >> >> >> isn't some time to wait before it's really shippable. 6 months won't be the >> >> >> end of the world, especially if it's added to an add-on repo someplace so >> >> >> people can get it if they really want something other than ff3. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Perhaps it's time to figure out how to make things like Tom's chromium >> >> > more official. Find actual hosting/mirroring for that stuff, make a clear >> >> > path to get people to it but also letting them know "hey, your milage may >> >> > vary". >> >> >> >> I would really like to see kopers happen, yes. That'd be great. >> >> >> > >> > Maybe I'm mistaken, I thought kopers was just for building. Does it >> > encompass hosting, distribution and such? >> >> IIRC yes, it just needs to happen .... someday ;) >> > > Maybe baby steps? Small incremental changes. Sure some features will be > missing that kopers will provide. But perhaps we could just create a > Fedora-13-devel tag in koji, push it to it's own repo or to individual > fedora-13-spot / fedora-13-mmcgrath repos. One that doesn't migrate to > updates-testing or updates. It just sits there. > > We're going to need something like this when kopers comes out anyway > right? I figure smaller steps towards that goal is better then one big > one. No disagreement here ... in fact this is a not really a "baby step" but "have something usable and start from there" which makes a lot of sense. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
