On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:27:42 +0100 Phil Sutter <psutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:11:50PM +0000, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter <psutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation, although I honestly don't see how > > > that could come to unison with the kernel updates applied to > > > stable versions. Any new version could break existing > > > functionality (although not intended), so that "should" seems to > > > be key. > > > > Yes. And iproute is not an exception. I remember a new iproute > > stopped displaying IP addresses. And the bug was there for 14 days > > until I fixed it. > > Thanks Petr for your input. You seem to be the first one who > understands my concerns with "rebases" (as Fedora seems to call it) > in stable releases. well, if you are referring to the kernel, thats kind of a special case: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelRebases and has a exception to the normal updates policy. > I really wish this topic wasn't as controversial as it appears to be. > Personall, I don't really care what Fedora's policy really is and I'm > fine following whatever it states. But the mere fact that it seems to > allow for interpretation to a point where it contradicts itself is not > only a bad sign, it most importantly for me makes it hard to follow. I'm not sure I see the contradiction. The kernel has an exception here (for all the reasons listed on the above wiki page) kevin
Attachment:
pgp7D1_bkfEqU.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
