On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:50:29AM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > 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. There's also the knock-on problem with all the interdependant pieces. Roll back the kernel, and oops, now you might need to roll back udev, hal, wireless-tools, alsa-lib, etc, etc. This is less of a problem than it used to be, but its still a problem occasionally. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk _______________________________________________ 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
