[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: some closure on the xorg updates issue

Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul <sundaram <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
In short, it's a major change with only modest benefit, and a better solution is coming soon.
And what IS that "better solution"?
A well defined updates policy with the release engineering team to grant exceptions when required.

Draft at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UpdatesPolicy

And how is that a solution to the problem that an X.Org update is needed to add support for some hardware (Intel) and improve support for others (ATI r3xx/r4xx)?

It is not. We cant put everything that goes into rawhide into the general releases as update. Some features would only be available in the next release. We are holding out major updates in FC5 till we decide on the policy since we dont want to micro manage this on a case by case basis.

Major new versions of system libraries, frameworks and desktop environments
MUST not be provided as updates and only in the subsequent releases.

Sigh, is that really what we want?

We dont know yet which is why its called a draft.

FC4 got a major KDE upgrade, there was only
one serious breakage (K3b) which was fixed by a subsequent K3b upgrade, and which would most likely have been avoided if the KDE upgrade got through updates-testing as the new update policy suggests requiring, and there were visible benefits.

There were also several user complaints on the fedora-list
about the lack of a KDE upgrade to 3.5.0 before it was pushed. KDE is ABI-backwards-compatible as is most of GNOME, so apart from exposing bugs in particular applications (which was what happened with K3b, and which updates-testing is there for to catch), there is not much which can go wrong.

I have linked several discussions about regressions in updates so do verify your claims against bugzilla reports and list discussions.

Now if course, if "major" means upgrading KDE 3 to KDE 4 (even when KDE 4 gets released officially), then I fully agree this doesn't make sense in a released version (putting a parallel-installable kde4 into Extras is certainly a better solution), but that's not how I read that clause.

Normally KDE 3.x.y updates would be considered minor since they are bug fixes and 3.x updates would be considered major since they introduce several new features.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]