Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> 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