Re: Should the policy documents better reflect real package maintenance practice?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I think that the documentation is right and should be honored. Updates in stable should be exception, if there really is no other option. I don't think that the constant churn of the updates is good for users and I think it'd be better if maintainers spend their time making sure the next version of Fedora is much better then keeping the older versions updated with the most recent versions.

But I am Rawhide user, so what can I know :)


Vít


Dne 24. 11. 22 v 1:04 Gordon Messmer napsal(a):
In the wild, I often see Fedora described as a "semi-rolling" release. As a policy matter, the distribution promises to be mostly stable, but I find it increasingly hard to honestly present it as such.

As a couple of quick examples, I'd point out that in Fedora 35, Blender updated from 2.93 (an LTS version) to version 3.  In Fedora 36, Emacs updated from version 27 to 28.  I've read in the KDE Matrix channel that KDE will be updated in Fedora 36 to 5.26, even though it has already been updated from 5.24 -> 5.25 (my reading of the KDE update policy is that Fedora used to update all releases with every KDE release, but decided to stop).  Firefox and Thunderbird get updates in most releases, even when they contain API-breaking changes  (those really should have an explicit exception, IMHO.)  I could offer more, but my point is simply that examples of updates in prominent packages isn't hard to find.

That's not necessarily to object to those changes (though I did have to do some minor fixes after the emacs update, and I grumbled quietly), and I don't want to disrupt users getting new features if that's what everyone actually wants.  But, it does bother me that the documentation doesn't seem to reflect reality.  I think that the documentation should offer users a realistic expectation of what they'll get from Fedora.

Does anyone else feel like the documentation should be updated, or am I making too much of this?
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux