On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:47 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > I'm not saying that we cannot do some amount of damage control but if > > the choice is: > > 1. patch out some feature (and therefore OWN that fork) > > 2. ship the newer, broken one > > 3. ship the older one > > > > None of those options are terribly good. > > Both the GNOME and the historical Red Hat Linux take on this would > usually be 3, ship the older one. 1 or 4 were only done for > business-type reasons such as "we really need NPTL for a customer" but > those reasons are now supposed to be for RHEL, in fact part of the idea > of Fedora was/is to get rid of them. > > 3 is the only one that is guaranteed to ship a stable product without > causing a delay. 1 can also ship stable product without a delay, but > only if you know you can assign someone to do the work in a finite > timeframe. If 1 becomes "hope someone patches the feature" then 1 can > mean delay. 4 almost invariably means delay. When we're talking about the kernel, though, 3 _isn't_ guaranteed to be a stable product ;) If you go back to a previous kernel release, then perhaps you've just lost all the security improvements. Or lost the ability to support hardware that's been released in the intervening six months since Fn-1. Jeremy _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
