On 03/05/2010 06:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> I suspect that the Fedora policy, as stated, makes the most sense for
> most people who use Fedora. There is no rule against pushing new
> package releases to updates, but they're not pushed unless there's a
> good reason.
Agreed here as well. Proper emphasis on "reason" -- there should be
a reason other than upstream has a new release but there's a lot of
leeway for the maintainer to decide if the reason::risk ratio is
OK, so we are on the same page.
> Fedora is a really good full-featured Linux distro with
> an aggressive release cycle, even without a continuous
> drinking-from-a-firehose updates policy.
This is where I'm a bit confused.... AFAICS, no one has pushed for
a drink-from-the-firehose policy.
Really? Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote about the "latest-and-greatest,
bleeding edge policy of Fedora." Thomas Janseen was arging against
Rahul Sundaram's perfectly reasonable reminder of the current package
>> So i (and others who think like me), have no reason to use
>> over one of the other mainstream Distros if Fedora is the same. And
>> we will not get users like me if we dont offer that. Sure, there
>> might be people who dont give a darn about people like me.
> Well, that's a rather specialized taste.
And since I was lost at the previous step, I wonder here what you
think Thomas wants that's rather specialized. If you think it's
"drink from the firehose" and that == rawhide, I agree that that's
specialized. If it's semi-rolling updates, then I think that's not
so specialized at all.
Perhaps not, but disagreeing with such an eminently sensible message as
Rahul's makes me wonder.