On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:46:42PM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote: > On 01/25/2012 10:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Bryan Quigley <gquigs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > It's pretty simple, really. Basically, if we don't keep the kernel on at > > least a somewhat recent release the amount of work required to support > > that release grows beyond what we can realistically maintain. > > ... > > > Hopefully that helps explain what we're thinking when we go about doing > > what we do. As usual, sorry for being overly verbose. > > A great explanation - and a nice summary of why a rolling release > makes sense for many of the same reasons .. :-) Except that this doesn't burn people often because Linus is also *very* strict about interface changes between the kernel & userspace. Can you say the same about GNOME? KDE? gcc? subversion? (Yes, they have rules about when they're allowed to break backward compatibility, but they are allowed to do it at certain version changes.) Somehow I doubt you'll be very happy with your rolling release if you update your machine right before a major customer demo or other Big Important Time-Sensitive Event, and the thing(s) you need to make it happen break--not because of bugs, but because unwanted "features" like configuration file changes, ABI changes, etc made your stuff stop working until you stop everything and fix whatever changed. -- Scott Schmit
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
