On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Stephen Warren <s-t-rhbugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433742 > > I assume I'm correct in saying this was the wrong thing to do. What is > other people's take on this? First question... how significant of a problem is the incompatibility. The bug report doesn't go into details. Are we talking configuration syntax change? Are we talking data loss? We have no policy which demands stagnation. Obviously some compatibility issues are more sensitive than others. But to have a dialog about this sort of issue with any particular maintainer, I'd need more details. But I'm not inclined to have this discussion over configuration syntax changes. The next question becomes, why was it updated? If there were major crasher or security issues that the update fixed, then that will of course change the dialog. As a distribution we need to limit the existence of compatibility packages as much as possible. Having to ship multiple versions of the same application, is an extremely poor solution. If the upstream project doesn't care about backwards compatibility between versions... then I'm not inclined that we demand maintainers to do it. That being said, breaking things(even config syntax) in an update is never desirable. But if the update is desirable for other reasons, individual maintainers have to determine the balance. Perhaps a clever maintainer(or a user who works with the maintainer) can find a way to to deal with the incompatibility issue without introducing a secondary package. The third question, would you have been just as upset if the application version changed between F8 and F9... instead of as an update? -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
