On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:47:09 -0700 Nathanael Noblet <nathanael@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/24/2012 06:30 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > I dont think there is a massive user base waiting for a rolling > > release really. Rolling release automatically implies a level of > > disruption periodically everytime a major component is bumped up. > > Esp for binary distros, this isn't that great a user experience. I > > would participate in such a effort but I don't buy the idea of this > > as a trend > > I'd be interested in a rolling release iff updates weren't > disruptive. Considering each release usually comes with *some* > issues. Sometimes regular updates has issues (for example eclipse > updates regularly causes me issues - no hard feelings). However if > that happened regularly as the release rolled on... I'd be finding an > alternative. I like to choose when to upgrade because I know when my > schedule matches. > > So far I've seen lots of discussion about can we do it, but no > proposal nor any real set of why it would be better. Does it reduce > packaging work? Does it do X Y Z? Why would I *want* a rolling > release? > You want a rolling release distribution where updates are non disruptive and go on for a long time? Can I suggest you call a red hat sales representative b/c you're describe rhel. :) -sv -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
