On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:57 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > * Version updates, the very ones you complain about, brought that 4.0 up to
> > 4.1 and later 4.2. I used F9 on my main machine from F8's EOL up to F9's
> > EOL. F9 with KDE 4.2 (and IMHO even 4.1) was rock solid, actually one of the
> > stablest Fedoras I used. (For example, F10 had issues with my hardware's
> > ALSA driver affecting PulseAudio, F11 with the graphics driver.)
> >
> Well, the problem was that you pushed KDE 4.0 in the first place. Given
> the state of things, you had very *strong* reasons to update to KDE 4.1
> and 4.2. And yes, pulseaudio was IMHO pushed one release earlier than
> would be ideal as well...
But note, that nothing in the Fedora update policy changes would prevent
from the same push during the _development_ phase either. So you might
be dissatisfied with the KDE-4.0 in F9 but this can happen with other
packages or package stacks in new Fedora releases regardless of the
update policy changes. So it is completely irrelevant to the debate
here. And actually with the 'conservative update' policy once something
like KDE-4.0 is in the _final_ release of a Fedora, it will have to stay
there till the EOL of the release.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
