On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 10:44 -0500, Pavel Simerda wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bastien Nocera" <had...@hadess.net> > > To: networkmanager-list@gnome.org > > Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 9:24:16 AM > > Subject: Release management problems > > > > Heya, > > > > We're running into trouble with the recent "Team" support in GNOME, as > > there's no backing NetworkManager release with the necessary team > > support: > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=723769 > > > > It wouldn't be that much of a problem if Fedora didn't ship git > > snapshots of the "next" NetworkManager version. Why ship git snapshots > > in Fedora that are apparently not good enough for full releases? Could > > upstream not do with testing on more than Fedora? > > Sounds like a request for the Fedora NetworkManager package rather > than upstream. As I understand it, the Fedora maintainers (while being > NM upstream developers as well) want to keep up with the current > upstream development and at the same time the current upstream > development is so much ahead of the latest upstream release.
But it's good enough to go in Fedora stable releases, but not as releases for all distributions to use? I don't understand that. > That could improve when the 0.9.10 release is ready. We already had the same problem 6 months ago with 0.9.8. > You, if I understand correctly, would prefer to only include upstream > NetworkManager final releases to Fedora just to help > gnome-control-center developers keep their software compatible with > the latest NM release. I would prefer releases to be made for all distributions, or even better, something that syncs up with GNOME releases. > I wonder whether such a rationale is a generally accepted one in > Fedora. There's NetworkManager developer documentation for the > released version to keep using only features existing in that release. > I guess there are also non-Fedora Gnome developers who could easily do > the pre-release gnome-control-center testing to ensure it can be > compiled and used on a system with a released version of > NetworkManager. As mentioned in the mail to Dan, something like GLIB_VERSION_MAX_ALLOWED would be useful to avoid this sort of problems, at least from the "does it compile" stand-point. I don't expect NM to grow the same sort of "shield" for its D-Bus APIs that we might be using, but for the front-ends to degrade gracefully should it happen. Cheers _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
