Stabe vs. Release vs Devel Was: KDE update - no testing period?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Rahul Sundaram wrote:
D Canfield wrote:

Why not take the debian methodology to the extreme and just have a testing and core repository with no releases? There's no interest in getting or keeping any end users, right?

Avoid rhetoric since it doesnt help at all.


It frustrates me that you dodged this question as "rhetoric" when it is actually the question that has bothered me the most. If there are no rules or policies regarding API/ABI/Version Number/Whatever stability in the releases, then really what *is* the point of a release? As the policies stand right now, there is nothing preventing all of the FC4 packages being pushed into the FC3 tree. Instinctively that sounds ridiculous, but given the package churn in FC4 of even major components like KDE, we're getting closer and closer to that. So again I ask what the point is of a release? What makes FC3 and FC4 different? Why not just have a development tree where things are developed and tested, and a stable tree where packages are then merged once people are happy with them? Then just make sure the whole thing can be installed from scratch once every 3 months and stop wasting resources on release management, updating multiple releases, fedora legacy, etc. It seems to me that it would be much less confusing than the current non-policies for releases.

DC

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]