* Owen Taylor:
> One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
> figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
> for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
> to keep users happy by moving things forward with ad-hoc updates and
>
On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 10:24 AM Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 08:50, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >
> > Folks, hi.
> >
> > Planning for a specific delay for a specific reason is one thing. But
> > the same design philosophy reasons that apply to Fedora 31 have
> > applied
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 08:50, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> Folks, hi.
>
> Planning for a specific delay for a specific reason is one thing. But
> the same design philosophy reasons that apply to Fedora 31 have
> applied to almost every other Fedora releases, and changing to an
> annual cycle is
Folks, hi.
Planning for a specific delay for a specific reason is one thing. But
the same design philosophy reasons that apply to Fedora 31 have
applied to almost every other Fedora releases, and changing to an
annual cycle is going to drive people *nuts* when updates for their
particular
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:10 PM Matthew Miller
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:15:52PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > This is basically the problem I have with the work we're doing in IoT.
> > The basically will make me re-evaluate if IoT is now worth doing at
> > all in Fedora or
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:15:52PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> This is basically the problem I have with the work we're doing in IoT.
> The basically will make me re-evaluate if IoT is now worth doing at
> all in Fedora or whether I am now better off focusing my efforts
> elsewhere.
Is there
Damn!, I thought this was a done deal and booked my six month holiday :-)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:58 PM Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:15:52 +, you wrote:
>
> >From an IoT perspective where we're looking at some features around
> >security that could be cross component dependent
> >(toolchain/kernel/userspace) to be unable to consume for
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:15:52 +, you wrote:
>From an IoT perspective where we're looking at some features around
>security that could be cross component dependent
>(toolchain/kernel/userspace) to be unable to consume for possibly an
>18 month window, yes we rebase kernels but we need to rebase
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:39 PM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
> figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
> for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
> to keep users happy by moving
Sorry about the two lines of the letter that do not fit much into the
concept:
So, I like the idea of one major and one minor release, if we want to stay
conservative and do not want to go the rolling updates way. And, in case we
want to stay super conservative and we do not want change anything,
Hello,
I do not think that we should be taking the path towards Gnome being in one
module. This is not, what "modular" means. In my understanding, modules
should be smaller, rather independent units, that will help solve some user
cases, but definitely not upgrading half of the system.
Also, if we
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:39 PM Owen Taylor wrote:
> And if we did do updates like that, would we consider respinning media
> and making a "F30.1"?
>
What's the difference between re-spinning install media and doing a proper
F31 release? At least from QA point of view, I see very little
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:38:52AM -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
> figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
> for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
> to keep users happy by
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:56 PM drago01 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, Owen Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:51 AM Stephen Gallagher
>> wrote:
>> > As came up in another part of the earlier thread, I think this is an
>> > opportunity for Modularity. For those
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:51 AM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> > As came up in another part of the earlier thread, I think this is an
> > opportunity for Modularity. For those things like GNOME that want to
> > rev mid-release, if they shipped
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:51 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> As came up in another part of the earlier thread, I think this is an
> opportunity for Modularity. For those things like GNOME that want to
> rev mid-release, if they shipped the 3.34 release as new stream, those
> that want to move to
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:39 PM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
> figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
> for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
> to keep users happy by moving
On 27. 11. 18 16:49, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:40 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:49:55AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> As came up in another part of the earlier thread, I think this is an
> opportunity for Modularity. For those things like GNOME that want to
> rev mid-release, if they shipped the 3.34 release as new stream, those
> that want to
Unfortunately due to some reasons I can't or don't want to modularize some
packages.
What should I do in this case?
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:59 Stephen Gallagher On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:40 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
> >
> > One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
> >
That's exactly question I had in mind, thanks for bringing it up!
Personally, if we won't be able to push breaking changes in F30, then
after some time people will not be happy about outdated software and
will leave distribution I think.
For maintainers it would probably mean that F29 won't get
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:40 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
> figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
> for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
> to keep users happy by moving
One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
to keep users happy by moving things forward with ad-hoc updates and
cross-our-fingers and hope
24 matches
Mail list logo
