On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Genes MailLists <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Moving any large change has challenges - whether periodic or rolling. > > In that sense, they are no different - both can be a PITA. > > However, in a rolling model you have the advantage of it being the > -only- change you need to do .. which is far less an issue than the Indeed - also it is also the case that whenever any really significant change is mooted in any complex system or facility that the first response is often for everyone to find all the reasons that they can think of for not making any change since making change means work and it is scary. However there are some people who will think carefully about any proposal and see if the work necessary could lead to a better overall model for the system. There have been a few who have expressed some support for the idea of rolling release - after all in terms of overall work consider the global effort - if there were rawhide, testing and stable repos (as now) but the idea of rawhide was to generate new packages that would be put together to make install isos (or live isos), which could install new systems as clean installs, and the testing repo was QA tested for updating new installs, as well as stable previously installed systems once the bugs were worked through for those two scenarios then packages could be pushed to stable as tested for both updating new installed systems and people already running stable. That way once installed there is no need to maintain and test updates specifically for the current release. As an overall workload would this actually be any more effort than the constant stream of testing for the "two" current releases - as an overall picture? Of course anyone could choose to clean install a really old system that had problems but in general updating small chunks of packages would be very desirable for users. -- mike c -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
