Jeff Spaleta wrote:
What is the incentive to make sure ALL the peices integrate together
nicely at any given point in time.. unless there are set release dates
to shoot for? A release schedule drives integration efforts to make
sure all the pieces work together. You can't just throw chunks of the
development tree over the fence into stable, you have to deal with
integration issues across subcomponents by having freeze points.
And that all makes sense. My point is that after the software is frozen
and released, it seems to the revert back into an open development tree,
with no rules as to what gets released except "try not to break stuff."
Do you really want to see a full rebuild of ALL packages in your
"stable" tree because a new compiler landed in the stable tree forcing
everyone in the userbase to download and install the ENTIRE installed
packageset as updates? Do you really want to see users who have been
relying on how the fc4 styled automounting worked via hal policy files
and fstab-sync.. suddenly find the automounting working in a
completely different way regardless of desktop because the new hal
stuff moved into your "stable" tree?
Not at all. My "proposal" about the rolling releases was not meant to
be taken seriously. I was trying to illustrate a point that when some
people talk about trying to stabilize things and make life easier on the
users, there is always someone waiting to proclaim that "Fedora is an
agressive developer's release and things break. Deal with it or switch
distributions." (And that's why I included the "rhetoric" about actual
users not being important to FC in my previous message.)
In the large scale view of Fedora Core.. KDE is NOT a critical
subcomponent of the fedora software stack. It is OPTIONAL and how it
is treated in terms of updates compared to other much more integrated
components can not be fairly compared.
It's in Core. How are end users supposed to know it's a second-class
component? Or is this one of the times that end users just have to deal
with things changing and leave if they don't like it? (FWIW, I'm not a
KDE user, so my interest is only in improving FC's policies and procedures.)
I'm sure I'm coming across in all of this as an argumentative sap. But
as an avid reader of fedora-devel for several months, I still don't
usually know what to expect from the project. It honestly feels as
though people flip-flop between the arguments that "we have to do it for
the users" and "FC is a development project" interchangeably depending
on what best justifies a course of action they want to take. And the
truth is that I don't care which route the project takes. I just wish
some of the goals and plans would be better defined, documented, and
followed.
DC
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list