Patrice Dumas (pertusus@xxxxxxx) said: > > Yes. There's the defined release lifespan; anything of consequence > > will be maintained for that period. > > You can say that but cannot give any guarantee. On the contrary. The Fedora project provides maintenance of the release for the release period. You're guaranteeing ... nothing. > > Neither is upgrading from TurboGears to Ruby on Rails and having your app > > work. If you started off by choosing the wrong tool, why would you expect > > an upgrade to something different to work? > > I know about users for which Centos/RHEL is not right because it is too > old, ... but then later want a longer term of support, up to 3-5 years, during which... their OS will be old. Just as old as an equivalent RHEL/CentOS, in fact. > technology preview in production environment and are willing to do some > testing and help with bugs, hence would have choosen fedora, but cannot > if they have to update each year. I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a straw horse that's being beaten to death. Fedora 8's been out less a year. It has, in that timeframe, received *over 4600 updates*. Fedora 9 has received over 2600 in its current lifetime. How is upgrading to the next release really that many orders of magnitude more change than this? After all, if you're on F9 you've already consumed a KDE-4.0 to KDE-4.1 update, for example. Or kernel updates from 2.6.25 through to 2.6.27. Or NetworkManager updates to the current version. Or ... <insert changes here>... Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
