On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:48:04 -0400, AJ (Adam) wrote: > > > IMO, it could be much more productive if you also > > > evaluated Fedora 16 development instead of Fedora 17 development. > > > > Sigh. > > > > I've been running Rawhide for a very long time. As of the last year or > > so, though, almost every post I make draws a response like this. > > I encourage you to ignore responses like this. Rawhide needs to be > consumable. Then something needs to be done about it. At least packagers ought to stop pushing newer packages to F-16 than what they build for Rawhide. Even better, if they push SONAME bumps to Rawhide, they should work actively on fixing broken deps and/or porting to new APIs if necessary. If they can't keep Rawhide as fresh as F-16, because the build for Rawhide fails, that's a common scenario with Rawhide, which also makes it hard or impossible to upgrade _to_ Rawhide due to broken deps and violated upgrade paths. Where to find Rawhide users, who run it daily? As would be necessary to test it like a F-16 test release. And those aren't popular either. Many Fedora users avoid updates-testing like the plague and expect the Fedora Project to do all the testing. -- Fedora release 16 (Verne) - Linux 3.1.0-0.rc6.git0.3.fc16.x86_64 loadavg: 0.08 0.20 0.26 -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
