On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 13:07 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 10:27 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 16:14 +0200, Frank Schmitt wrote: > > > Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 14:40 +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 07:52:44AM -0400, Build System wrote: > > > >> > Updated Packages: > > > >> > > > >> Is this post-FC3 stuff or will (parts) appear in FC3 final? > > > > > > > > rawhide is still pointed at the FC3 trunk... although that will probably > > > > change very soon > > > > > > <rant>So an update to an Evoltion bugfix release is ok, an update to a > > > KDE bugfix release two(?) weeks earlier is not. Great.</rant> > > > > The updated evolution package isn't an update to a new version. It's an > > updated build with a specific, small, targeted fix for a specific bug > > that had been filed and was on the blocker list for the release. > > > > If evolution were updated to version 2.0.3, then you could rant :) > > I think he complains (and complained earlier) about evo being updated to > 2.0.2 in the first place. The update from 2.0.1 to 2.0.2 happened on October 12th and has been in Rawhide for over two weeks; I'm not sure why it appeared in this rawhide report (I'd have to look at the code that generates them). It was a bugfix release. It didn't introduce new features, and upstream claims the update fixes 34 bugs (including at least one that was filed in the blockers for FC3 in our bugzilla, off the top of my head). The recent changes (2.0.2-2 and 2.0.2-3) were, as Jeremy says, small and targeted. > > Nils > -- > Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 > PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 >
