On Tuesday 17 January 2006 9:22 pm, Robert Locke wrote: > Well, let me just jump in say that *I* request that FP not change their > policy. I knew going in that I was on a forced march. This has been > the policy since Day 1. I started with FC1, and a few weeks after FC2 > release upgraded to that, then FC3, then FC4. The point of my use of FC > is to experience where Red Hat is going with RHEL, not as a production > system (though it is my primary OS on my laptop). I do not want the > developers wasting their time on FC3 anymore. I want them spending > their time getting FC5 in better shape as crunch time is here to get it > ready heading in to test3 then release. I want it fairly stable so that > a few weeks after it's release it will be ready for me to upgrade to. > > While, in theory, it is not much effort to continue "supporting" the old > release, I'm not sure about this comment, given what Dave Jones said.... > it is a further distraction that *I* would prefer they not > spend *any* time on. As a community member I fully endorse the current > arrangement..... I otherwise agree with the above -- as an end user, I appreciate the current pace of development, and when I need stability I use MEPIS or PCLinuxOS, both of which I run extensively in situations where I care more about long-term stability than latest features. Let it be said that there is also 'strong' sentiment to keep things in Fedora-land as they are... -- Claude Jones Bluemont, VA, USA
