PA 1.0 for FC16?

Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) ngompa13 at
Sat Oct 8 22:02:51 UTC 2011

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Genes MailLists <lists at> wrote:

> On 10/08/2011 04:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > if there would be much more care by introducing new features/replacements
> > my understanding for the fear of update thmen after that would be much
> higher
> >
> > as long fedora is shooting out new features without any care if they are
> > really ready fdora should also update them - systemd as best example
> >
> > and no - this is not flaming - this is simply the wish if i get new
> > software which is not really ready but seems good anough for a GA-release
> > i expect updates of this software are more than good enough to be push
>  This argument makes some sense (if a bit overblown) - we do seem more
> concerned about not updating than not releasing in the first place -
> e.g. while its true we delayed systemd - the general noise level
> suggests it was still not  solid enough ... once its released 'core'
> components get less love coz making changes is bad ...
>  This seems a bit odd ... we're cutting edge - but if the cut smells
> then its too bad ...
>  I still strongly advocate for a rolling release - where single large
> core changes can be serialized if need be into the testing repo for as
> long as it takes to stabilize them (or pulled back out as a unit) - and
> smaller improvements and bug fixes can continue unimpeded ... now we
> could be truly leading edge.
>  gene/
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at

A few years ago, I would have probably been against a rolling release system
for Fedora. But with the improved infrastructure over the last year or so, I
would actually like to see Fedora transition to such a system. The only
disappointing thing is that there'll be no more release parties... :(
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the devel mailing list