On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:08:14PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > According to the updates policy the > > maintainer needs to consider that their change will cause problems for third > > party kernel module packagers and end users that are compiling their own > > kernel modules. > > We *know* we're going to break out of tree modules. It's entirely expected. > There's nothing to consider here at all. > I don't disagree with your first two sentences. In fact I'd go further -- It's not only expected, it's also accepted by you. The third sentence is the only thing that I think needs to be looked at in terms of the Update Policy. The updates policy and the updates vision on which it is based strive to make maintainers realize that pushing updates has both positive and negative effects on end users. Some of those effects are also "expected and accepted". For instance, the updates vision says "Similarly, dealing with a large number of updates on a regular basis is distracting from the user's desired productivity tasks." Simply issuing an update is in and of itself one negative in the updates vision. So, yes, it may be fully expected that issuing an update will break out of tree modules but that doesn't stop it from being one factor to *consider*. Just remember that I am *not* arguing that just because you should be considering it you have to decide that it's more important than you already do. You think of it as a cost of doing business just like the cost to the user of "dealing with a large number of updates" at all. This is a cost that you have implicitly weighed against the benefits of being able to bring new kernels to the end user that fix real bugs, support new hardware, and are otherwise beneficial. I have no problem with you deciding that the benefit amply justifies the cost. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp5UwZk04daT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
