On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:23:24AM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:07:17 +1000 > > Jeff Fearn <jfearn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 13:56 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:03:04 +0400 > >>> "Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)" <forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In most cases I try sync all branches if there no real reasons to > >>>> make differences. > >>> ...snip... > >>> > >>> I would hope a real reason would be that the update is not a > >>> security or bugfix only update, right? > >> IMHO it depends on what kind of software it is. > >> > >> I push releases of applications to all current Fedora releases. The > >> users want the new features, it's what they have been bugging me for. > >> > >> If I was working on glibc or X I might not do that, but applications > >> should be pushed back unless there is some system level constraint > >> preventing it. > >> > >> So I too would like a "commit to all branches" or "sync all branches > >> to this one" command. > > > > If it doesn't change the user experience, and fixes bugs or security > > issues, then great. ;) If it's a major update which does change the > > user experience, breaks ABI/API, or adds a bunch of new functionality, > > then please don't. > > If you want ABI stability buy RHEL or use CentOS, because clearly your > requirements are completely different from the requirements of most of > the users of my software. They'd go batty if I tried to tell them they > had to use rawhide to get a new feature. Surely it would be ok to tell them "use the latest Fedora" so you can at least leave Fn-1 (currently F12) alone. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
