On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 16:12 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:17:39 +0200 > Sven Lankes <sven@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote: > > > > > I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly > > > oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing > > > things differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are > > > either more or less neutral or positive towards this new change? > > > > I don't think that this about the KDE SIG at all. > > > > Not everyone is as passionate (or stubborn) as Kevin. > > I agree. > > > Most fedorians I talk to are watching all the discussions to see if > > the fedora that is currently being formed with all the changes that > > are happening is still a distribution that they're comfortable > > contributing to. And as the only way to get heard is to fuel a > > flamewar on fedora-devel they just stay silent. > > I think the flamewars are making people think this is a bigger deal > than it really is. > > > > [...] I'm for more testing and more conservative update policy in > > > general in stable branches. > > > > I don't oppose the ongoing changes in general but still - when I read > > through fesco meeting logs I am often disappointed by the amount of > > politics going on and more than once I wished that FESCO as a whole > > would grow a pair. > > Can you expand on that? I'm not sure what you mean... > > > I for one have decided that I'm going to stop contributing if the > > 'Stable Update Vision' is going to be implemented as currently > > discussed. If the powers that be are going to stop maintainers from > > issuing updates that are not security or bugfix updates then fedora > > will have turned into a distro that I'm not interested in. > > Bring your concerns to the Board that issued the vision statement? > > I personally think the "just security and bugfixes" is too strong. > I am going to try and push for an exceptions process that takes into > account upstreams that don't release in a way thats compatible with > fedora's release cycle. I think that a distinction can be made between core packages that many different components depend upon versus "leaf" packages that do their own thing and no other component relies on. I do think we should be conservative when updating core components in released versions of Fedora; with rawhide much less so. But perhaps "leaf" packages can have a less conservative policy. When it comes to package updates, I don't think "one size fits all". I wrote up some notes on other possible variables that should be considered back in March here: http://dmalcolm.livejournal.com/5013.html My hope is that it ought to be possible to take the variables I mention in that blog post and come up with some kind of coherent policy that everyone is happy with, or, at least, not unhappy. > I hope you won't be hasty and will try and work with whatever framework > we end up with and help us adjust it. Agreed Hope this is helpful Dave -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
