Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:23:24AM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote:
>> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:07:17 +1000
>>> Jeff Fearn <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 13:56 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:03:04 +0400
>>>>> "Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>> In most cases I try sync all branches if there no real reasons to
>>>>>> make differences.
>>>>> I would hope a real reason would be that the update is not a
>>>>> security or bugfix only update, right?
>>>> IMHO it depends on what kind of software it is.
>>>> I push releases of applications to all current Fedora releases. The
>>>> users want the new features, it's what they have been bugging me for.
>>>> If I was working on glibc or X I might not do that, but applications
>>>> should be pushed back unless there is some system level constraint
>>>> preventing it.
>>>> So I too would like a "commit to all branches" or "sync all branches
>>>> to this one" command.
>>> If it doesn't change the user experience, and fixes bugs or security
>>> issues, then great.
If it's a major update which does change the
>>> user experience, breaks ABI/API, or adds a bunch of new functionality,
>>> then please don't.
>> If you want ABI stability buy RHEL or use CentOS, because clearly your
>> requirements are completely different from the requirements of most of
>> the users of my software. They'd go batty if I tried to tell them they
>> had to use rawhide to get a new feature.
> Surely it would be ok to tell them "use the latest Fedora" so you can
> at least leave Fn-1 (currently F12) alone.
What do you mean "leave it alone"? The people using it WANT the changes.
Why are you telling them how they can use their system?
They want the changes, it's trivial for me to give them the changes, why
wouldn't I give them the changes?
Jeff Fearn <email@example.com>
Red Hat, Inc
Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY
devel mailing list