On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 20:41 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote: > In order to advance progress for the releases a short life cycle is > needed to ensure programs do not remain static and outdated. I do not agree. Programs can advance and change, without the OS having to change. OS and applications are separate things. > Some of the refined programs that change just for the sake of change > are annoying but overall the short cycles are just fine if you want > some reprieve from the development cycle. You have about a year for > each release support expires which sounds like plenty of time to move > up release cycles. I don't agree with this either. For instance, the people maintaining some applications, such as Evolution, have flatly refused to fix some faults [1] with it in a current release (FC7). Their answer is you'll have to use the next Fedora release (FC8). For some people this just isn't practical, whether that simply is the hassles of changing a whole OS to suit one application, or because that release doesn't work for you on the whole. That attitude can mean that some software never works. The current release is always broken, with fixes only being applied to a future version. 1: One of them being that Evolution crashes if you try to use the date picker when setting up filters or search folders. -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
