On 01/27/2013 10:42 PM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 27 January 2013, Ranjan Maitra sent:
But the rush to release will still be there, whether it is a 6- or 9-
or 12-month cycle? At the point of release, inadequately-tested new
features may still be a problem, no?
I think a more reliable approach is to have a rolling release model,
with periodic snapshot RPMs in a cycle? The periodic snapshots could
be benchmark-based, so no specific time schedule, rather than
calendar-based?
I tend to agree.
You could, very easily, be testing a distro in preparation for its
general release, with all looking well. But it only takes an updated
package, or two, to stuff things up. It might pass the testing, at the
time, but last minute packages wouldn't have had the amount of testing,
under more varied circumstances, than packages that have been their for
longer.
It's not such a huge problem when its something like Firefox, which can
be replaced by an post-install update. But when something that's
required to do the installation is screwed up, that is a big problem.
Likewise, things that are core to the distro become a big problem, if
the plan is not to replace them during that release.
Well what are the odds that ANY of these suggestions will actually be
considered and / or acted upon?...And I only ask out of curiosity...
EGO II
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
