On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:31 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > I mostly agree, however it seems to me that a true Fedora LTS is > missing, that would allow those who want things that are new, including > for testing but cannot afford changing everything each year (servers for > example or user desktops). It seems to me that fedora ends up being used > almost exclusively as single user desktop, so that testing of other > functionalities is likely to be less widespread. Fortunately, those > functionnalities certainly need less integration and so less testing in > fedora before they go to RHEL/CENTOS + EPEL, but still it would > certainly have some relevance, in my opinion. Given the amount of churn we allow maintainers to introduce into our "stable" releases, I highly doubt Fedora would be suitable for any situation where a "LTS" was desired. There is just too much major version upgrading, behavioral changes, massive amounts of updates, rapidly invalid documentation, and high chance of regression in the "stable" updates. We should address *that* problem before ever thinking about extending the life. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (http://jkeating.livejournal.com) Fedora Project (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) identi.ca (http://identi.ca/jkeating)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
