On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'd like to think of distributions as having some editorial control over > what they ship. If someone writes crap you don't have to publish it. Or at > least overlap old/new versions for a complete version run. And a lot of the software in the open ecosystem is under heavy development and do not need the backwards compatibility that you are expressing a need for for your in-house code. If we used editoral control in an uninformed fashion to dictate the level of stagnation you require..then we are most likely killing our ability to move the open source stack forward aggressive...which I'll remind you is the primary goal of this endeavor. Can we make space for your needs? Maybe. But you or someone else who also cares deeply about this level of backwards-compatibility will have to do the work necessary to outline the roadmap. I've laid out exactly what I think the starting point would be for the process of defining a development framework concept to be used inside the Fedora project space. But until we have a best-effort assessment as to which upstream libraries can be relied on to do deal with backwards compatibility in a mature way, we don't have a place to begin towards making substantial headway. Everything you want done..requires additional manpower and effort. And unless you're prepared to dig in and do some of the work...as the person who cares deeply about this...none of its going to get done. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
