From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101014/001178.html | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 115 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101014/001178.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101014/001178.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101014/001178.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101014/001178.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7d6ebfb08 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101014/001178.html @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] How will be the realese cycle? + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] How will be the realese cycle?

+ Tux99 + tux99-mga at uridium.org +
+ Thu Oct 14 16:14:12 CEST 2010 +

+
+ +
+
+Quote: Ahmad Samir wrote on Thu, 14 October 2010 16:00
+>
+> I've seen, too many times, trigger-happy packagers backporting
+> packages that're not maintained by them (so they know it less than
+> those package maintainer(s)), breaking those packages and annoying the
+> maintainers of said packages. It's usually irresponsible to backport a
+> package without taking that package maintainer's opinion into account.
+> (an infamous example on that is gwibber being backported to 2010.1).
+
+I agree it should be preferably the maintainer doing the backport, or he
+should at least be consulted.
+ 
+> New users who frequented the forums always got to know what backports
+> are pretty fast. And bugzilla is the perfect system for asking for a
+> backport, that worked pretty good.
+
+The wast majority of 'normal' users never uses the forum.
+Backports shouldn't be something that only users who frequent the forum
+find out about.
+
+> That's they way backports has always worked, no specific patches, just
+> the latest cooker package pushed to backports "as is with no official
+> support", that's reasonable, packagers shouldn't promise to support
+> backports when they can't due to various reasons (time, effort.. etc).
+
+But IMHO that should change in Mageia, we should promise support by the way
+of timely updates, especially when security issues are present.
+
+> > Backports shouldn't be second choice, it should be the default,
+> > since that
+> > would make Mageia stand out from other distros as being the distro
+> > were
+> > users get the latest versions of apps before any other major
+> > distro
+> > provides them.
+> 
+> Enabling them by default defies the purpose of having backports at
+> all; it's not for new users, it's more for slightly experienced users
+> or power users who want the latest versions of apps.
+
+That's exactly the crucial bit that IMHO needs to change, backports are
+very interesting for 'normal' users so we should make sure normal users
+can use them.
+Don't you see how attractive it is especially for 'normal' users to have
+access to the latest versions all the time?
+Sure, not everyone wants them, but by integrating the skip.list in the
+update GUI we could keep 'conservative' users happy too.
+
+
+-- 
+Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
+
+ + + + + + + + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1