Bill Nottingham wrote:
The issue is providing a reasonably stable usable platform - realistically,
if ISC wanted people running a version of bind in production, wouldn't they
*tag it as stable and release it*? By shipping it in a release, we're
essentially saying we know better than upstream what's appropriate for users.
Do we?
This is *exactly* what I mean. Maintainer should know how things *really
are*, not just blindly repeat what upstream officially says. Red Hat
doesn't have to pay maintainers if it needs only robots who just pick up
the latest stable version and package it w/o any thinking.
Maintainers have right to don't release the latest stable version if
they think it's not ready yet, right? So why they can't release a
pre-stable version if they think it's ready? (and when it doesn't break
any upstream rules, of course).
Martin
P.S.: ISC is quite paranoid about releasing "stable" versions because it
has customers who pay for ISC software and use it in critical
environment. So in this case I think we can be quite relaxed.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
