[Mageia-dev] Question about backports: calibre (bug 1659)

Tue Jun 14 15:41:56 CEST 2011

Le mardi 14 juin 2011 à 03:00 -0700, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU a écrit :
+> 
+> > So why does it have to be treated differently than the others since
+> > there is nothing special about this release cycle  ?
+> 
+> Michael, please give me an example of an application that releases on average 5 time a month. Really, give me an example.
+
+Release frequency never was a criteria for differentiating between
+pushing something to updates and something to backports. 
+
+And I see no reason why it would be in favor of doing a bug fix update
+rather than a backport, especially if we ask to do a more stringent QA
+checking on updates, as it would put too much work on the team.
+
+> And, like it or not, calibre is _THE_ application for e-book lovers. For e-book users, it's as important as Firefox or
+>  Chromium is for the rest of the people.
+
+Again, that's not a criteria. Every software is important to at least
+one person, and that would mean we should update everything if we start
+to update everything important to one group of users. 
+
+
+> Also, Mageia 1.0 was released with a version of this application shamefully old. 
+>
+> Fedora made a better judgment (I might just consider switching to Fedora, although I like Mageia more): 
+> they released F15 with a recent version of calibre, 0.7.56, but they added in updates 0.8.0. For the 
+> time being they stopped at 0.8.0, and only in Rawhide they pushed 0.8.4, which in my opinion is a good 
+> judgment that would be a _balance_ between:
+> 
+> -- announced bug-fixes
+> -- announced new features
+> -- announced new hardware supported
+> -- ad-hoc assessment of the risk brought by the new features (a heuristic
+> process based mainly on experience as a user, experience as a software
+> developer, and common-sense).Of course, the people who _make_ a distro are 
+> its _owners_, and of course the reasoning of those who make Fedora is not 
+> necessarily the best example to be followed by everybody, but as it happens, I prefer their brains.
+
+You still do not explain where is the problem of using backports for
+that. 
+
+And for what it is worth, Fedora is discussing having separate update
+and backport ( https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/515 ), even if the
+discussion seems to be going nowhere at the moment 
+
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+