Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: [...] > > It is a bit more complicated. A distro may begin its life bleeding > > edge and become stable as time goes by, if it is still maintained. And > > a stable distro may have parts that are bleeding-edge. This is not > > necessarily easy to implement, but these scenarios certainly have > > merits. I don't see any... Sure, it might be nice for the (tiny minority) who wants e.g. bleeding edge compiler (because they are hacking on it?) with a very stable everything else. > That was the way things worked when redhat developed its popularity. No... > An X.0 release was approximately as unstable as a fedora, Not really. > but as it > updated to X.2 or X.3 it would have become very stable and people who > started a development cycle with the early versions could keep the > same OS in production as it matured. But there was no guarantee whatsoever of a .1, a .2 or even a .3 would ever materialize. > What we need Who is the "we" here? > for the same effect > now is for the versions of fedora that provide the initial RHEL cuts > to offer a seamless update to the subsequent matching CentOS, > repointing to its update repositories for continued support. If a majority of Fedora folks wanted that, Fedora would move like that. Fedora Legacy wouldn't have gone belly up for lack of hands. And Red Hat would have gone on doing .0, .1 and so on forever. -- 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 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
