conclusion: F15 / systemd / user-experience
lists at sapience.com
Tue Jun 14 04:57:19 UTC 2011
On 06/13/2011 08:54 PM, Scott Schmit wrote:
> Not addressing specifically the issue with the kernel updates, but at
> least in part, the answer is simple:
> * Within a release, updates should try very hard to avoid breaking
> * Between releases, upgrades can change a lot. These changes are
> advertised so that users can decide if/when they want to upgrade.
>> and the kernel is really not a big deal because the updates
>> are normally not invasive
> Not in my experience--I have had on occasion crippling kernel bugs that
> come and go from update to update (hangs with no oops recorded to the
> log, for example). Thankfully, that's rare, but I'd argue that it's
> *because of* that conservatism, not in spite of it.
The upstream kernel is a rolling release with Linus' law of protect
users as much as possible.
While a fresh released kernel in stable often gets a few updates and
fixes the .1 or .2 stable kernels are generally remarkably solid.
This is in large part attributable to the rolling release model.
Fedora could well benefit from switching to a rolling release model
as well (no not rawhide - a controlled rolling release much as the
kernel development follows).
More information about the devel