<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Michael Cronenworth <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@cchtml.com" target="_blank">mike@cchtml.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 06/22/2016 04:23 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Please read again what I've said, I have no issue to backport kodi 17<br>
to stable (f24) at some point.<br>
There is nothing wrong against updating f24 kodi 16 to 17 18 or<br>
whatever. But having the repo and upgrade path broken for 23-->24 user<br>
migration is more a problem. This is a rel-eng concern.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
It should be the package maintainers discretion as to if a version is stable enough or not - not by only reading the words "alpha" or "beta" and saying "No, we cannot have this version in our repos." I have found that Kodi alpha/beta releases are stable enough to be consumed by everyone, but I will only issue an update after I have tested it myself.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Reading both of these emails, I think there may be a miscommunication as to whether or not "alpha" and "stable" are referring to the Fedora 24 release or the Kodi release?</div><div><br></div><div>(I may be wrong, though, sorry for butting into this if so).</div><div><br></div><div>Ben Rosser</div></div></div></div>