On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:10:00 -0600, AW (Andrew) wrote: > First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm > certain that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15, > 16, and Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu which still has a lot of 14 left > at it's core with much success. This would have deserved a longer comment, | [...] packages from 15, 16, and Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu | which still has a lot of 14 left [...] because it's an eyebrow raiser, but instead, energy is put into participating in flame-wars. :-/ The fact that it's possible to replace some software in a released dist with newer versions doesn't make it a rolling release yet. It's not clear to me at all whether the term "rolling release" is used in the same way by everyone. Technical questions remain unanswered. How much parallelization of different software releases in packages would be necessary? > using a waterfall repository method is solid, we have been doing it for > over year now. "Waterfall" is not "rolling", so how would you eliminate the stages without eliminating the testing period and without invalidating the test results when replacing/upgrading too many crucial components further down in the waterfall? -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
