On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:41:41 +0200, you wrote: >Nicu Buculei wrote: >> And we the people using it for real work still remember the times when >> Fedora used to be a bleeding edge distro and had such GIMP updated... > >+1 > >The new update strategy (because it IS new, contrary to what some lazy >maintainers who always refused to follow the old policy out of sheer >laziness are claiming) just makes no sense, is the exact opposite of what >more than ? of our users are asking for (see the FedoraForum poll on the >subject, made prior to the change) and is destroying what used to be a major >selling point for Fedora. In addition to the warning that Gimp 2.7.* is considered unstable and not to be used in production (aka in a distribution), it comes with a warning that they are cleaning up the API's and thus 3rd party plugins and scripts can be broken. So you are saying Fedora should go against the wishes of the Gimp developers, as well as endure the significant risk that plugins/scripts that users rely on may not work? >It is also utterly ridiculous and pointless if you consider the fact that >the Firefox maintainers are allowed to push major (first digit! Not minor >like 2.6 to 2.8) version increments as "security" updates? (Ironically, >Firefox used to be one of those odd packages NOT doing feature upgrades when >the rest of the distro was getting them. They seem to have fun always doing >the exact opposite of Fedora policy.) It's not the Firefox maintainers, it is Mozilla who have decided that release numbers are irrelevant and that the bug fix release for Firefox 5 is Firefox 6. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
