Rodd Clarkson wrote:
So firefox-0.10.1-1.0PR1.20 shouldn't have been included with FC3?
What about thunderbird-0.8.0-9?
I guess it depends on what we mean by "pre-release"... Is anything 0.x
"pre-release"? From what I've read here OOo-2.x pre-release isn't quite
ready for the masses. Personally, I'd rather have a less feature-rich
but stable product, than a feature-rich product that crashes, hangs or
whatever else inconveniences me.
I'm not saying that FC should be just including ANY pre-release
software, but it has include some well tested pre-release software and I
for one applaud the inclusion of firefox and thunderbird in FC3 (instead
of having to wait for FC4).
I agree with that... I use FireFox and Thunderbird... and even
bugzilla'd one or two things... Thunderbird 1.0 has some annoyances...
but nothing I've found that's caused me any real grief. :-)
Why can't OOo-2.x pre-release be included (given significant testing)
and then updated to 2.0 final after FC4 is released. It's not like this
hasn't been done before.
I'd have to ask what "significant testing" means.... :-)
Given the short release cycle of FC, I don't see the problem of
deferring a program package to the next release, or making it available
via up2date. If people really need to run code that close to the
bleeding edge, they're free to do so via rawhide.
Is it really a matter of choosing between FC4 and FC5? If omitted from
FC4, why can't it made available via up2date at some time prior to FC5?
(up2date is one of pet peeves but it is A LOT better than it used to be)
Don