On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:05:10 +0200 "Chris Chabot" <chabotc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But they should upgrade to FC6 to get new gcc, new gnome, new .... seriously > I find the argument 'they shouldn't have to upgrade to get a new X' somewhat > .. thin The fact is that there are updates to gcc, gnome and others that have already been released into FC5 that have nothing to do with security updates. Not to mention the kernel update which went from 2.6.15 when FC5 was released to to 2.6.17 now. The kernel update in particular seems like a very worthwhile update to FC5 that goes against your argument. The X infrastructure is similarly important because it affects the number of systems on which FC5 can run with graphic support. > Either we embrace that we put everyone on a rawhide kind of release cycle, > with large updates and (relatively major) version changes of the components, > or we embrace that a release is a somewhat stable platform.. Well, you bring up an interesting point, but it's not what I think really started this discussion. It would be a _new_ policy to only release security patches for each release and not update the kernel or other components at all. Until such a new policy is embraced we should continue as things have been, with each update to a release being judged on its own merits to decide if the benefits are worth the risks. So far, nobody has identified any risks or downside to releasing 7.1 into FC5 other than the one thing that really shouldn't affect the decision at all (that is, the availability of a compatible binary driver). Sean -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
