Hello Seth, Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:38:44 AM, you wrote: > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: >> On Tuesday 09 March 2010 14:02:07 Seth Vidal wrote: > I'm sure with the same logic I can say a lot of things. > What I said was " I want fewer broken things." > -sv Seth, The problem is that when things do get broken in a stable release, the updates that fix the problem often only get released in the next release. When I installed F11, two of my systems ran fine for the install and those updates available at time of installation. One of those was an Intel system which only was able to do graphical install with the final release (not any of the snapshots before release). The other was an older ATI board. Both systems were borked by X11 updates that came one week after the GA. I was able to get both system running vesa-mode with help from the mailing list. I dutifully opened bug reports... which I updated regularly. It took on the order of three months until things got back into good enough shape to run native X again. Part of that was because I'd upgraded my monitor and replaced the built-in Intel with an ATI card (needed to support a widescreen LCD at 1920x1200). I am worried that the direction a number of folks is taking would place excessive focus on minimizing risk due to changes. Stuff happens, so in complex areas such as X my experience of a "stable release" being broken a week after release was unpleasant but not all that unexpected. What was unexpected was that it would be acceptable for this regression to be left unaddressed for months, with all of the development resources focused on the next release. My primary server is stuck at F10, waiting for the bind/dnssec smoke to clear. Until I can get my second server functional at F12, it will not be touched. Reality says that I need it functional so I can log in to my day job and get stuff done. Al -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
