Rahul <sundaram <at> fedoraproject.org> writes: > >> In short, it's a major change with only modest benefit, and a better > >> solution is coming soon. > > > > And what IS that "better solution"? > > A well defined updates policy with the release engineering team to grant > exceptions when required. > > Draft at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UpdatesPolicy And how is that a solution to the problem that an X.Org update is needed to add support for some hardware (Intel) and improve support for others (ATI r3xx/r4xx)? > Major new versions of system libraries, frameworks and desktop environments > MUST not be provided as updates and only in the subsequent releases. Sigh, is that really what we want? FC4 got a major KDE upgrade, there was only one serious breakage (K3b) which was fixed by a subsequent K3b upgrade, and which would most likely have been avoided if the KDE upgrade got through updates-testing as the new update policy suggests requiring, and there were visible benefits. There were also several user complaints on the fedora-list about the lack of a KDE upgrade to 3.5.0 before it was pushed. KDE is ABI-backwards-compatible as is most of GNOME, so apart from exposing bugs in particular applications (which was what happened with K3b, and which updates-testing is there for to catch), there is not much which can go wrong. Now if course, if "major" means upgrading KDE 3 to KDE 4 (even when KDE 4 gets released officially), then I fully agree this doesn't make sense in a released version (putting a parallel-installable kde4 into Extras is certainly a better solution), but that's not how I read that clause. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
