On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
Sean <seanlkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:05:10 +0200
"Chris Chabot" <chabotc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
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.
That means backporting all kinds of "interesting" stuff. If somebody is
willing to do (or pay somebody doing) that /huge/ and uninteresting job, go
right ahead. Nobody stops you from doing a "stable" Fedora branch (like the
stable kernel series).
Been there. Done that.
Backporting security patches is a bitch. It takes a lot of time and a lot
of testing. (I used to do that for an Redhat varient distribution.)
It is not a lot of fun.
--
"I want to live just long enough to see them cut off Darl's head and
stick it on a pike as a reminder to the next ten generations that some
things come at too high a price. I would look up into his beady eyes and
wave, like this... (*wave*!). Can your associates arrange that for me,
Mr. McBride?"
- Vir "Flounder" Kotto, Sr. VP, IBM Empire.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
