On 10/08/2011 04:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:This argument makes some sense (if a bit overblown) - we do seem more
> if there would be much more care by introducing new features/replacements
> my understanding for the fear of update thmen after that would be much higher
>
> as long fedora is shooting out new features without any care if they are
> really ready fdora should also update them - systemd as best example
>
> and no - this is not flaming - this is simply the wish if i get new
> software which is not really ready but seems good anough for a GA-release
> i expect updates of this software are more than good enough to be push ASAP
concerned about not updating than not releasing in the first place -
e.g. while its true we delayed systemd - the general noise level
suggests it was still not solid enough ... once its released 'core'
components get less love coz making changes is bad ...
This seems a bit odd ... we're cutting edge - but if the cut smells
then its too bad ...
I still strongly advocate for a rolling release - where single large
core changes can be serialized if need be into the testing repo for as
long as it takes to stabilize them (or pulled back out as a unit) - and
smaller improvements and bug fixes can continue unimpeded ... now we
could be truly leading edge.
gene/
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
A few years ago, I would have probably been against a rolling release system for Fedora. But with the improved infrastructure over the last year or so, I would actually like to see Fedora transition to such a system. The only disappointing thing is that there'll be no more release parties... :(
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
