<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Genes MailLists <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@sapience.com">lists@sapience.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
The kernel has undergone more updates than systemd ... all for very<br>
good reasons - making it better and solving problems. Sure the same<br>
would apply to systemd.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>We also go to some lengths to make sure that there is a fall back kernel on the system by making sure the update kernel is _installed_ in parallel with the running kernel and not _updated_ in the rpm packaging sense. And optionally you can configure your system to hold N older kernels (I have N=6 for testing purposes currently cuz I'm that sort of crazy)<br>
<br>If an update kernel causes a serious regression on your hardware, for whatever reason, you'll still have your current kernel to fallback to.<br><br>I very much doubt our kernel maintainers would feel comfortable doing
the updates that they do if we didn't leave a fallback kernel on system
as an alternative entry in the grub boot menu. Sure its hidden by
default and you have to do a special action to get access to that boot
menu, but its there as a safety net.<br>
<br>We have no such fallback stance in place for the init system. I think that is an important consideration that you have to factor in here. Do you want to walk people through a recovery process where an init update failed for some unexpected reason? I look forward to seeing everyone cheerleading for a systemd update to be pushed to F15 to sign up for #fedora help hours to deal with the unforeseen consequences of that advocacy. .<br>
<br><br><br></div>-jef<br></div>