On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:46:58AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:23 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Because EPEL has to be very stable, so additional time spent in testing is
> even better, for example for reasons you highlight below. I never said
> that packages should not go through testing in EPEL! But Fedora is another
> thing.
The conclusion here is that it's OK for Fedora to be broken and unstable
in it's releases. I call bullshit. It is very much not OK for this to
happen.
You haven't read my point. I said that the difference is that hot fixes
for regressions are more likely to happen in Fedora. So I mean that
allowing hotfixes in fedora may improve its stability -- especially for
specialized packages that will never be tested by anybody else than
the maintainer. While there is little point for hot fixes in EPEL.
--
Pat