Hello Simo, Friday, March 12, 2010, 3:42:41 PM, you wrote: > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:41 +0100 > Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The problem with all the proposals centered on the idea of N-1 as >> conservative, N as less conservative, including yours above and >> jreznik's, is that it forces all the people who expect a constant >> type of updates to upgrade twice as often, i.e. twice a year. >> Especially for the conservative folks, this will be a big annoyance. >> With low bandwidths, you have to get a CD/DVD shipped each time! In >> addition, I think the inconsistency will confuse our users a lot. Fedora has traditionally supported upgrading from not just N-1, but also N-2. Folks often skip releases, especially if they are aware of problems (such as the pulseaudio and X issues) with a new release. > I think you have to decide if you are siding for people with low > bandwidth or cutting them out. > You just said we cannot cater to people with low bandwidth. > Well stick with your point and don't swindle as soon as it doesn't help > you win an argument for argument sake ... > Users are confused and annoyed by too frequent upgrades. Those people > are fine sticking with N and then N-1 until security updates are no > more, and only jumping from N-1 to N+1 once a year. This includes many > developers I can assure you. > Simo. I've also run into cases where I tried to upgrade, but it failed to install. I restored from backups, and kept using the older release until I had time to do a fresh install. I do not believe my experience is unique. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
