On 03/07/2010 12:43 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > No but I have been on that list for five years and follow a lot more I've been with it since early redhat days ... First, may I suggest we not confuse version N-1 and assumtion of stability. That is way too simplistic. Sometimes the best path to stability is to update. Stability comes from many things - not changing the software may help sometimes and other times it just keeps you stuck with bugs and broken behaviour. Attempting to make naive rules like never update as some are suggesting is .. well naive. Stability comes from using sound judgment - maintainers and upstream and feedback from users .. these together provide information from which good decisions can be made. We need to rely on upstream as well as our maintainers and not clamp them in a box - encourage them to do whats right. By all means provide guidance about using good judgment. It seems clear to me - in spite of those in denial, that the majority of fedora users want to track upstream as much as possible and keep pretty much up to date. Everyone I know chose fedora for that reason together with its basic solidness. We want some testing and QR to be comfortable things will continue to work reasonably - we want to pick up the bug fixes and the new hardware (wifi drivers for example) support. And yeh - we'll take the new kernel speedups too! Yes we've had bad decisions (kde 4.0 in my view) and good decisions (2.6.32 kernel - def sound decision). Another question is how the fedora management teams (fesco et al) will deal with bad decisions once they've been made - generally the response to problems in the past has been good (fixing dnssec for example). Fedora is pretty dang good - can it be better ? Sure ... but its not broken. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
