Kevin Kofler wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
And yet, you suggest the only alternative to the too-fast push is to
switch to RHEL or Centos. What's that do to your worst case if you
think 6 months is too long?
You have to decide: do you want updates or do you not want them?
I would want them if I had some reason to believe they wouldn't break my
machine. But I have my reasons to not believe that.
If you
don't want to wait for the next CentOS release, then obviously you need the
update quickly, so you are in Fedora's target base. But then you can't
complain that you get updates too quickly!
I'd still complain when it breaks.
> You can't have both ways.
Why not? Most of the time it isn't broken. Why isn't there a way to
avoid the times when it is on the machines where you care?
(You're one of those users with contradictory requirements I mentioned
elsewhere in this thread.)
I think most people would prefer that certain machines never break - and
many would be willing to test on a less critical machine if exactly what
they tested would later be reproduced on their more important machines,
but with random rolling updates it doesn't work.
--
Les Mikeell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
