FC3rc5

[Matias Féliciano]

Le vendredi 29 octobre 2004 à 18:22 -0400, Charles R. Anderson a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 12:05:02AM +0200, Matias Féliciano wrote:
> > My "opinion".
> > Today, Fedora does not support :
> > - FC(x) => FC(x+1)T(y) and FC(x)T(y) => FC(x) .
> 
> I'm pretty sure the former is supported--the goal is always to support
> upgrading to what will become FC(x+1).  Of course, what do you mean by
> "support"?  Anaconda doesn't outright prevent you from doing any
> upgrades, so all upgrades are "supported" in that sense.
> 
> > - FCx => FC(x+1)RC(y) and FC(x)RC(y) => FC(x)
> > should be supported.
> 
> "supported" how?

If I can't update from FC3RC1 to FC3 it should be considered as a bug.
If after an update from FC1 to FC3RC1 there still bugs, they should be
considered as confirmed bugs. Fedora should not request to do a fresh
install to confirm the bug.

>   These are test releases.

I know.

>   The goal is always to have
> upgrades work, especially as we get closer to a release, but there
> will be bugs in test releases that cannot be solved always without a
> fresh install (unless you know how to fix the issues manually
> yourself).  An example of this is package version downgrades.

After rc1, fedora should not downgrade package. Fedora is freeze since
Test 3.
I am not requesting for a "strong" support. Information in the release
note to update from FC3RC(x) to FC3 is enough (perhaps with some "rpm -U
--oldpackage :-)).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20041030/508a742c/attachment.sig>