The question of rolling release?

seth vidal skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Wed Jan 25 05:05:23 UTC 2012


On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:47:09 -0700
Nathanael Noblet <nathanael at gnat.ca> wrote:

> On 01/24/2012 06:30 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > I dont think there is a massive user base waiting for a rolling
> > release really. Rolling release automatically implies a level of
> > disruption periodically everytime a major component is bumped up.
> > Esp for binary distros, this isn't that great a user experience. I
> > would participate in such a effort but I don't buy the idea of this
> > as a trend
> 
> I'd be interested in a rolling release iff updates weren't
> disruptive. Considering each release usually comes with *some*
> issues. Sometimes regular updates has issues (for example eclipse
> updates regularly causes me issues - no hard feelings). However if
> that happened regularly as the release rolled on... I'd be finding an
> alternative. I like to choose when to upgrade because I know when my
> schedule matches.
> 
> So far I've seen lots of discussion about can we do it, but no
> proposal nor any real set of why it would be better. Does it reduce
> packaging work? Does it do X Y Z? Why would I *want* a rolling
> release?
> 

You want a rolling release distribution where updates are non
disruptive and go on for a long time? Can I suggest you call a red
hat sales representative b/c you're describe rhel. :)

-sv


More information about the devel mailing list