On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > Chris Adams wrote: > > > IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statements like yours > > > that contribute to the "Fedora is a rolling beta" perception (and I > > > don't think that's a good perception to have). If you want to target > > > rawhide with rolling releases of KDE, have fun. Once a release is out > > > the door, try not to just throw a new kitchen sink in for the hell of > > > it. > > > > Some people actually LIKE rolling releases, indeed some distros use > > completely rolling releases (e.g. Arch Linux). We are currently somewhere > > inbetween (partly release-based, partly rolling), and IMHO this compromise > > is working great. We get the advantages from a rolling release model, but > > with a lot less surprise breakage as in a true rolling model because > > disruptive changes like libata go only into new releases. > > > > If only we had some sort of rolling release, that tracked as closely with > upstream as possible, where the users of said release understood they were > drinking from the firehose. Meanwhile, along side that release we could > have periodic stable releases that don't move so quickly. That way you get > what you want and I get what I want. Oh wait! That's the world we live > in today. Next time a user tells you "I want a newer X" tell them > "Upgrade to rawhide". > <bad form replying to myself, sorry> Or to put it another way, why aren't you doing this and telling others to do this? If someone is on F11 still, why do you think they want the latest and greatest software? If they did, they'd upgrade to f12. And further still, why wouldn't they be running rawhide? The rolling update release exists. Why force rolling updates on people that haven't chosen to run rawhide? -Mike -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
