heads-up: upstart reversion coming soon

[Matt McCutchen]

On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 23:24 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:50:14 -0400
> > Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > 
> > > I do too. I suspect for situations like this we at a minimum need to
> > > adopt a more formal process for pulling feedback/votes/whatever outside
> > > of the meeting timeframe, whether it's calling a special session, enforcing
> > > a 'you must vote in the ticket by this timeframe or your vote is counted
> > > as <foo>', or something else.
> > 
> > You left out removing the fanatical devotion to releasing every six months :-).
> > I've really never understood that one. Why is virtually everything subordinate
> > to getting a release out at an artificial deadline? Why not just release when
> > there appears to be enough things working to justify a new release?
> 
> ...or, since the current justification for having stable releases at all
> is 'to handle upgrade cases we can't handle with yum', have a new stable
> release only when we hit such a case (and try to hit as few such cases
> as possible)...

On the contrary, I thought the point was that users should expect
greater changes in a new release than in updates.

I have upgraded to new distribution versions with yum in the past
because I found it worked well enough and was less invasive than going
through anaconda, or because I had a custom configuration that anaconda
couldn't handle.  To the extent that yum upgrades are unofficially
supported, I appreciate it.

-- 
Matt