On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 18:32 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > The current update rate works well for me and has a lot to do with why I > chose Fedora (particularly over RH, which I was using before, which is > absolutely horrible at being out of date, and for which I had to either > roll all sorts of packages by hand or else pull in half of Fedora > anyway). There is a big gap between RH(EL) which is extremely stable, new releases every few years, and Fedora which has a new release out every 6 months. There are also differences with what and why updates are pushed, and how they are done. Primarily RHEL fixes bugs by back porting fixes to shipped releases to keep further stable, whereas in Fedora we're free to pull in new upstream releases to fix bugs. I'd just prefer that we spend more time pulling things in when necessary, rather than whenever we can. > Do you consider what we currently have to be no different from > rawhide? I think the only thing keeping it from being like rawhide is the bodhi hurdle. If bodhi wasn't as much of a process as it is, I don't think there would be much difference, except that for some key packages the maintainers choose to not just do every new release everywhere, and tend to treat our releases as just that, stable releases not to be trifled with unless there is darn good reason. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
