On 2022-11-30 06:41, Eike Rathke wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood. So you're agreeing that once Thunderbird does not
support the N-1 ESR anymore then rebasing to N is wanted on release
branches?
Yes. In really explicit detail, see the message I sent at 2022-11-27,
23:42 (Pacific).
Hi Gordon,
On Monday, 2022-11-28 08:21:31 -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 2022-11-28 07:36, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > > I would much prefer to see Thunderbird updated early in
> > > Rawhide and releases that are not yet final, but to remain on the older
> > > stable version for as long as
On 2022-11-28 08:51, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with this, because practically speaking, there's
very little "oversight" of anything in Fedora.
Is that a disagreement, though? When I say that packages are allowed to
update without oversight, what I mean is that while the
On Sun, 2022-11-27 at 23:35 -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> I'd like to suggest specific updates (I'd feel more like I was
> contributing to a productive conversation and less like I'm merely
> complaining), but I'm a little unclear FESCo's point of view. I'll do my
> best.
>
> Given the
On 2022-11-28 07:36, Eike Rathke wrote:
I would much prefer to see Thunderbird updated early in
Rawhide and releases that are not yet final, but to remain on the older
stable version for as long as possible on any Fedora release that had
included it.
That'd be a problem though because ~every
Hi,
On Thursday, 2022-11-24 10:41:45 -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> I would much prefer to see Thunderbird updated early in
> Rawhide and releases that are not yet final, but to remain on the older
> stable version for as long as possible on any Fedora release that had
> included it.
That'd be
As a practical example, if Fedora prefers stability for application
packages over early updates, I'd like to use Thunderbird as an example
because the upstream vendor supports two releases concurrently for a
predictable period of ~ 12 weeks.
In practice, maintaining that package might look
I'd like to suggest specific updates (I'd feel more like I was
contributing to a productive conversation and less like I'm merely
complaining), but I'm a little unclear FESCo's point of view. I'll do my
best.
Given the discussion so far, I feel like Fedora effectively allows at
least leaf
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:20:10AM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 1:40 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> > I have to make confession. I am breaking this guidelines too. With
> > releasing of new version of Mock and fedora-license-data. The problem for
> > me is that the
Dne 24. 11. 22 v 22:42 Adam Williamson napsal(a):
On Thu, 2022-11-24 at 16:26 -0500, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 13:12, Gordon Messmer
wrote:
On 2022-11-24 03:13, Michael J Gruber wrote:
I guess there's (at least) two ways to understand "stable":
- things don't break
-
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 1:40 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I have to make confession. I am breaking this guidelines too. With releasing
> of new version of Mock and fedora-license-data. The problem for me is that
> the list of these exception is not available and not maintained. I inherited
>
On 2022-11-24 13:26, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
It has to do with differing opinions on that and in the first part of
the sentence. There is
A) Updates should aim to fix bugs, AND not introduce features.
B) Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not introduce features.
...
Whenever I have talked to
On Thu, 2022-11-24 at 14:08 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> The policy is also a bit unclear (or just wrong as written) saying
> exceptions need to file for every update or can be just 'you have an
> exception for this package/collection of packages unless something
> changes'.
The way I read
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 01:42:20PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Thinking it over some more - I think Gordon's right that I hadn't
> considered all the language - I think my personal opinion would be that
> the policy should be adjusted to be less opinionated on this idea of
> "introducing
On Thu, 2022-11-24 at 16:26 -0500, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 13:12, Gordon Messmer
> wrote:
>
> > On 2022-11-24 03:13, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> > > I guess there's (at least) two ways to understand "stable":
> > >
> > > - things don't break
> > > - things don't change
> >
On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 13:12, Gordon Messmer
wrote:
> On 2022-11-24 03:13, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> > I guess there's (at least) two ways to understand "stable":
> >
> > - things don't break
> > - things don't change
>
>
> True, but the policy document is explicit about which meaning is
>
On 2022-11-24 09:28, Adam Williamson wrote:
The update policy is very keen on discouraging *compatibility-breaking*
updates.
That's true, it does explicitly discourage compatibility breaking
updates. But it also says "Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not
introduce features," and if
On 2022-11-24 05:50, Tomáš Popela wrote:
Although not explicitly stated there, Firefox is mentioned as a first
example in
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#examples.
Also nearly all Firefox and Thunderbird updates there are the security
ones there really isn't another
On Thu, 2022-11-24 at 07:34 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 04:04:59PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> > In the wild, I often see Fedora described as a "semi-rolling" release. As a
> > policy matter, the distribution promises to be mostly stable, but I find it
>
On 2022-11-24 03:13, Michael J Gruber wrote:
I guess there's (at least) two ways to understand "stable":
- things don't break
- things don't change
True, but the policy document is explicit about which meaning is
intended, reading, "Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not introduce
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:12 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 02:40:09PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> > > > Does anyone else feel like the documentation should be updated, or
> > > > am I making too much of this?
> >
> > +1 to update documentation. Or even better, document
V Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 02:40:09PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> > > Does anyone else feel like the documentation should be updated, or
> > > am I making too much of this?
>
> +1 to update documentation. Or even better, document which packages has the
> exception. And later ask QE to create
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 2:34 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 04:04:59PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> > In the wild, I often see Fedora described as a "semi-rolling" release.
> As a
> > policy matter, the distribution promises to be mostly
Dne 24. 11. 22 v 9:52 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
I think that the documentation is right and should be honored.
For the audience - the documentation is here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#philosophy
Updates in stable should be exception, if there really is no other
Dne 24. 11. 22 v 12:13 Michael J Gruber napsal(a):
I guess there's (at least) two ways to understand "stable":
- things don't break
- things don't change
(... unless absolutely necessary, in each case)
To me, "things don't break" describes Fedora stable releases (as opposed to rawhide), and
I guess there's (at least) two ways to understand "stable":
- things don't break
- things don't change
(... unless absolutely necessary, in each case)
To me, "things don't break" describes Fedora stable releases (as opposed to
rawhide), and "things don't change" describes RHEL.
A typical
I think that the documentation is right and should be honored. Updates
in stable should be exception, if there really is no other option. I
don't think that the constant churn of the updates is good for users and
I think it'd be better if maintainers spend their time making sure the
next
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 04:04:59PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> In the wild, I often see Fedora described as a "semi-rolling" release. As a
> policy matter, the distribution promises to be mostly stable, but I find it
> increasingly hard to honestly present it as such.
>
> As a couple of quick
In the wild, I often see Fedora described as a "semi-rolling" release.
As a policy matter, the distribution promises to be mostly stable, but I
find it increasingly hard to honestly present it as such.
As a couple of quick examples, I'd point out that in Fedora 35, Blender
updated from 2.93
29 matches
Mail list logo
