On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Genes MailLists <li...@sapience.com> wrote: > On 01/25/2012 03:48 AM, drago01 wrote: > >> >> Exactly releases have the advantage of being a well tested set of >> updates where you have a window to decide whether you want to update >> yet or not. >> So I don't see what a rolling release gains really. If you always want >> to run the latest and greatest run rawhide (and help make it usable). > > There seems to be some confusion about this - rolling releases have > dev and testing just like periodic releases - and there's no reason at > all they cannot get at least (if not more) testing than a chunky release.
Not really what about installation? Do you generate an image every time you push updates? Stay with an ancient install image that might not support current hardware? I can't really see how a rolling release would gain us any more testing. > An enterprise may want a LTS kernel - and the kernel team does indeed > offer that - the long term stable kernel is now in the 3.x series. A > rolling release can offer LTS kernel if there is desire for that too. Enterprise just don't want unexpected changes without having time to test it in their environment first. > For enterprise setting - as I said earlier in the thread, its likely > many would rather have series of smaller updates than 1 gigantic update > every 2-3 years ... the latter can be unpleasant and disruptive. Every such update requires testing before deployment ... doing it more frequently would be more unpleasant ... but anyway fedora is not really suited for use in an enterprise environment. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
