On 7/30/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sunday 30 July 2006 20:21, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > That's true, and the issue was raised previously that maybe clearer > > guidelines should be written about what should or should not be updated > > within the same Fedora release. FC-5 shouldn't "eat babies" like > > rawhide, yet one expects more than just security updates. So a line must > > be drawn somewhere. For example, if a new version of gnumeric (or > > inkscape, or whatever) is out, with bug fixes and new features, by all > > means it should be released. OTOH, if said new release is not backward > > compatible with older documents (unlikely of course, but this is just an > > example), you obviously don't want to update and potentially break > > someone's documents. I think this is where common sense should come in, > > and certainly inconvenience to the user base is one of many factors that > > should come into the decision... > > > > -denis > > At the very least, such guidelines would make things clear, would > probably reducing levels of complaining about such. Keep in mind that such guidelines, if ever conceived, would have to apply to Extras as well, since Extras is a default repository of Fedora and Extras changes can break other packages within Extras. Trying to set a policy will take the ability out of the hands of maintainers to issue updates, and instead a controlling person or persons will have to evaluate each and every proposed update, slowing the system way down :/
Default or not, at least the name of the repos imply that they can have different governing rules. Core could/should have more strict policies that Extras. I don't understand why this shouldn't be so.
-- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
-- To be updated... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
