Dennis J. wrote:
> That makes sense for a long lived distribution but not really for fedora.
> If I really need to be running the latest versions then I'll update to the
> next version of fedora when it comes out which is always a maximum of 6
> months away. I'm certain there are some fixes in the new kernel that some
> people will appreciate and there is certainly no harm in getting them but
> actually spending all this time on apparently rather complex problems
> between these two kernel versions seems strange if the result will be that
> short-lived.
Fedora has always updated the kernel to upstream releases regularly. They
just decided to skip 2.6.28, which may be why you got out of the habit.
IMHO updating to new upstream releases is the right thing to do. New kernels
tend to fix lots of bugs. And FWIW, we're also handling KDE in a similar
way. IMHO more packages should get version upgrades. Sure, application
changes which remove features, library soname bumps which require
rebuilding half of the distro and stuff like that needs to go into the next
Fedora only, but new releases which don't introduce breakage, don't remove
features, fix many bugs and add new features definitely should get pushed.
In the case of the kernel, it's sometimes a bit of a tradeoff between a few
regressions which affect a few people and many bugfixes which affect many
more. The decision of pushing out a new kernel to stable is all about
finding the right point at which to push it, minimizing regressions while
at the same time not making people wait forever for their much needed
fixes.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
