On Monday, July 27 2009, Jeff Garzik said: > Honestly, I always thought Fedora install images should be regenerated > far more frequently. > > I think back to my days as a Solaris sysadmin in the late 90's, where > ordering the latest "media kit" (CD-ROM) from Sun meant I got a fresh > installer, fresh kernel, and all recommended patches. And Sun was doing those media kits roughly every six to twelve months from what I remember. And our (major) release frequency is every six months, so ... > Even in the face of known Linux kernel bugs, people always seemed > reluctant to regenerate the Fedora install images. I think Fedora would > better serve its users by being much more willing to update install > images after initial release. Regenerating the images is expensive -- it requires effort on the part of the developers doing fixes, release engineering doing builds with the fixes, QA testing the fixes, infrastructure (mirrors) carrying a significant amount more bits[1], ... When our releases are at most six months apart, how much effort are we willing to divert from the next release to make this happen? It's not going to happen for free. Jeremy [1] What gets respun? All the images (DVD, live, etc)? Some of them? If some, which ones? How do we differentiate between them? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
