On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 10:27:52AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Martin Stransky (stransky@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > Adam Tkac wrote: > >> As I wrote above I disagree with you that put alpha (which will come > >> to beta really soon) to F8 is bad decision "because it is alpha". I > >> tested it and I didn't find any issues. That's why I decided put 9.5 > >> to F8. > >> Adam > > > > Is a former bind maintainer I have to support Adam here. In my opinion it > > depends what package is taken and it's really a big difference between a > > huge project (like gnome/gcc) and relative small one like bind. > > > > Bind alpha/beta versions are periodically more stable than other **stable** > > projects. > > It's not about comparing to other projects. Different kernel releases are > all stable, and have wildly divergent bug sets. > > The issue is providing a reasonably stable usable platform - realistically, > if ISC wanted people running a version of bind in production, wouldn't they > *tag it as stable and release it*? By shipping it in a release, we're > essentially saying we know better than upstream what's appropriate for users. > Do we? > > Bill Stable release means stability is guaranted by ISC. And if stability isn't guaranted it doesn't mean unstability. It means that you could have problems. And I don't have problems for five months so this is good reason that F8 bind is relative stable. Adam > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
