On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 03:42:08AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> I'm very sorry for my bad mood and I apologize.
> But what I want emphasize is that we are losing the concept of
> stability not just in Fedora, it is in many other projects, KDE for
> example, simply don't have any "stable" or LTS release or something
> like that, that is real stable and solid as rock. 

LTS and unchanging really isn't in Fedora's charter. But, we do want
releases to be solid for daily use, and it's true that a stream of
updates can detract from that. I really would like us to follow the
long-standing official updates policy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy which says that updates
within a release should have minimal disruption.

I know this is at odds with many developer and packager desire to make
updated software available quickly, and I know there are a subset of
users who like this too. The Modularity initiative aims to make it
easy for us to do _both_.

> For packages maintainers like me, that maintain packages in free time,
> we got more and more work and begins to become impossible maintain all
> packages correctly, we got lot of packages that aren't updated because
> people simple don't have time, so should be important, that some team
> take care of completely out-date packages, like, for example, gitlib
> [1], also maybe in wild changes like systemd, selinux, appdata, etc,
> the team help packagers on maintain his packages. 

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Do you
mean that it would be nice to have a team of people who would work to
update packages across the distro if there are big changes to core
packages? We actually have that, in the Proven Packagers team. See the
"Mass package change proposal" for an example of this in action.

Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to