> From: "Preston Crawford" <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > From: David Jansen > Sent: 12/10/2003 12:59:13 PM > To: fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: how bleeding edge will the next fedora release be? > > > You can already take packages from the "testing" repositories if you > > want to be closer to the bleeding edge than what Fedora offers by default. > > > > I think this is a good mix, FC is a reasonably stable platform which can > > be used in production (although more bleeding edge than RH(E)L), and for > > those who want newer packages Yes, packages will generally not be as old as in RHEL. There are two ways of looking at this. At the moment, a bug has to have some degree of severity to be back-patched. Irritations and feature deficiencies generally get fixed upstream. Fedora will get those fixes sooner > > use beta packages General policy is to not put beta packages into Fedora, IIRC. Unfortunately, I cannot find the exact link for you, so my memory could be failing. > , 2.6test kernels etc. IIRC, stated policy is that if 2.6 is not ready, FC2 will be released with a 2.4 kernel. Again, I cannot find the exact link, but I think FC2 will be more stable than you seem to have inferred from the original response. > > David Jansen > > Exactly. Why the need to move the default closer to bleeding edge? > This helps no one and could hurt some of us who want to use a > stable distro. Or force us to go distro-shopping again. My take on it is that FC2 will be as stable as you want it to be. If you 'pay' for the release by testing during the development cycle it will be more stable than if you sit on the sidelines expecting enterprise stability for no cost. > Preston -- Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Pearson Education/Information Please
