Pete Chown <1@xxxxxx> wrote: [...] > The perfect solution, IMHO, would be two separate update streams. There > would be a "recommended updates" stream for security patches and fixes > for major bugs. Then there would be an "optional updates" stream for > minor bugs, new upstream versions, that sort of thing. Then I could > install all the recommended updates, but I could leave the optional > updates unless I particularly needed the improved functionality. The resulting divergence will lead to *two* Fedoras, the "stable branch" and the "aggressive updates branch". Most users will stay on the first one, and complain that they don't get all the shiny, new toys that are in the second one; most developers will track the second branch and let the first one fall into disrepair. Been there, done that (look for the extensive discussion and rationale for the "new kernel development model" if you want to see this in action and the grief it gives). And allowing people to mix and match gives an even worse quagmire of "Fedora X, with just /this/ mix of stable/agressive". Better (try to) make sure that procedures in place give no problems when updating. We clearly aren't there yet. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
