Les Mikesell wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> >> No gotcha here. I don't expect users to handle the issues. Either the >> users in question want the opportunity to run the latest software in an >> integrated distro and so choose to run Fedora or they want to have a >> stable platform on which to deploy their own work and therefore they use >> CentOS/RHEL/Debian Stable. > > No, it's not an either/or scenario. You're confusing what you want with what is. What is *is* an either/or scenario as there is no definite path from starting with Fedora to getting to a long term OS. What could be is a long term release for certain releases if you and other like minded people do the work to offer security updates and major bugfixes beyond the current EOL. > Users may way to develop something > new and be willing to put up with unstable fedora to get current tools > for that, but there is no clear transition plan to put what they have > built into production. In the old RH X.0 -> X.1 -> X.2 days the > transition from a new release to a stable OS usable in production > happened through updates - now it doesn't happen at all. Support is > simply dropped for the platform you started on and there is no reason to > expect anywhere near the same library versions and environment as you > migrate to a stable platform. > >> There's a right tool for any job and a wrong tool. Using your crescent >> wrench to hammer nails is possible but not very satisfying. > > What's the 'right' tool to develop for the next version of Centos? > Why, the initial release of the Fedora version that the next version of CentOS is going to be based on, of course! :-) And if you want to ask which version of Fedora that is, I'd like to ask you how you knew there was going to be a RHL 6.2 but not a RHL 6.3; a RHL 7.3, but not a RHL 8.1.... -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
