Leaving? (cont'd)

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 7/30/06, Denis Leroy <denis at poolshark.org> wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Back in FC4 I think it was, a newer vesion of KDE came out
> >>approximately halfway though the Fedora life which fixed at least
> >>three problems that I (and others I am sure) had which had rendered
> >>serveral applications useless. So for half of a Fedora an update was
> >>_not_ made as I was told it was a general policy not to do major
> >>updates within a realse cycle.
> >>
> >>Similarly, when MySQL jumped to 4.1 I think it was, Fedora stayed with
> >>4.0 for the entire release cycle, for apperently no reason other than
> >>the no major update policy.
> >
> >
> > This kind of thing is not a general Fedora policy but is rather
> > (generally) left to the discretion of the package's maintainer in question.
>
> That's true, and the issue was raised previously that maybe clearer
> guidelines should be written about what should or should not be updated
> within the same Fedora release. FC-5 shouldn't "eat babies" like
> rawhide, yet one expects more than just security updates. So a line must
> be drawn somewhere. For example, if a new version of gnumeric (or
> inkscape, or whatever) is out, with bug fixes and new features, by all
> means it should be released. OTOH, if said new release is not backward
> compatible with older documents (unlikely of course, but this is just an
> example), you obviously don't want to update and potentially break
> someone's documents. I think this is where common sense should come in,
> and certainly inconvenience to the user base is one of many factors that
> should come into the decision...
>
> -denis
>

At the very least, such guidelines would make things clear, would
probably reducing levels of complaining about such.

-- 
To be updated...