Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 08:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
You have to decide: do you want updates or do you not want them? 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! You can't have both ways.
(You're one of those users with contradictory requirements I mentioned
elsewhere in this thread.)
Updates != upgrades.
I think frequent updates to given package set to fix bugs is great.
Frequent upgrades to a package set for new upstream features, behavior,
bugs, incompatibilities is not so great.
With the 6 month cycle of Fedora, and our willingness to break things
like crazy in the rawhide world, we're still a very very fast distro and
unique in the distro space for early adoption of software. This all
comes /without/ even considering what we do for updates to our releases.
Even if our releases only got bugfixes, we're still uniquely agile to
new software and technologies and very fast to new releases using those
things.
That would also be the simplest possible solution to the scenario of
satisfying both people who want bleeding-edge and stability. If the
first 3 months of a cycle were dedicated to getting the 'best' code
possible (including new features, etc.) and the subsequent life was to
the extent possible, restricted to only bug/security fixes, you could
simply wait to upgrade the more important machines until the system
stabilized. And for people who want the new features you are now down
to a worst-case of only 3 months to the next release. This is, of
course, complicated by upstream developers bundling features and fixes
and the decisions really have to be left to the packagers but some
generic policy in this direction might help.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
