On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Al Dunsmuir wrote: > > 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. Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why? -sv -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
