On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 23:24 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:50:14 -0400 > > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > > > I do too. I suspect for situations like this we at a minimum need to > > > adopt a more formal process for pulling feedback/votes/whatever outside > > > of the meeting timeframe, whether it's calling a special session, enforcing > > > a 'you must vote in the ticket by this timeframe or your vote is counted > > > as <foo>', or something else. > > > > You left out removing the fanatical devotion to releasing every six months :-). > > I've really never understood that one. Why is virtually everything subordinate > > to getting a release out at an artificial deadline? Why not just release when > > there appears to be enough things working to justify a new release? > > ...or, since the current justification for having stable releases at all > is 'to handle upgrade cases we can't handle with yum', have a new stable > release only when we hit such a case (and try to hit as few such cases > as possible)... On the contrary, I thought the point was that users should expect greater changes in a new release than in updates. I have upgraded to new distribution versions with yum in the past because I found it worked well enough and was less invasive than going through anaconda, or because I had a custom configuration that anaconda couldn't handle. To the extent that yum upgrades are unofficially supported, I appreciate it. -- Matt -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
