[PHILOSOPHY] Stability and Release Schedules

[Mike McCarty]

Jens Petersen wrote:
> John Wendel wrote:
> 
>> Why not have a continuously evolving distribution? One would start by 
>> downloading an "installer system" that would then use the existing 
>> mechanisms (yum, whatever) to update itself. From this point on, why 
>> would one need "releases"? Just keep releasing updates and new 
>> packages exactly as things are done now.
>>
>> I know there must be something wrong with this scenario; would someone 
>> like to hit me with a clue stick.
> 
> 
> For a start not everyone in the world has enough bandwidth for that: so 
> they need iso images to be able to upgrade for example.

Here's one which may make more headway for understanding. There is
in any piece of software's life a thing called "integration test"
where it is tested with other pieces it must coexist with. Until
any given piece has been tested with other pieces, it may work
fine, or it may not, but we don't know. There comes a time when
one just *can't* test with every previous version of every piece
of software which has been released before, because there's just
not enough time. So one draws a line in the sand, and calls it
a release. The software available at that moment is all we test
with, and all we "guarantee" it'll work with. Trying all permutations
of all previous versions of all software just becomes too burdensome.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!