On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 11:55 +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Quoting Michael Cronenworth (2012-11-01 18:33:24)
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > I didn't want to throw this grenade into the debate, but now someone
> > > else has, I'll just note that I was in favour of this before and I'm
> > > s
Well your point basically is "we can't/don't ship anything that is
stable so we should give up on that."
I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
operating system.
Compare it to "always cutting edge" like
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> Well your point basically is "we can't/don't ship anything that is
> stable so we should give up on that."
More or less, yes.
> I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
> introduced via updates from time but is is *very* u
On 11/02/2012 07:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Anyway, we've rather torpedo'ed the feature process discussion now, and
I'm sorry about that :/. Hence the topic change. But while we're blue
sky thinking about massive release process changes, I think it's worth
keeping a firm grasp on what Fedora i
Adam Williamson writes:
> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
>> introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
>> operating system.
> I disagree. It's usable by the kind of people who use Fedor
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
>> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>>> I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
>>> introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
>>> operating system.
>
>> I
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 17:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
> > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> >> I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
> >> introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
> >> operating system.
>
Am 02.11.2012 22:53, schrieb Tom Lane:
> Abandoning any pretense of having stable releases will eliminate a huge
> fraction of the user community. For sure it will eliminate *me*. I'm
> not in the business of fighting OS bugs every single day, and I will not
> be forced into that business. I h
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:17:02 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
..snip...
> If you're using a Fedora release today you're _already_ fighting OS
> bugs more often than most people do, I'd say. I disagree with drago's
> assertion that my description was of people who use Rawhide. It was
> not intended t
Adam Williamson writes:
> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 17:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've seen a whole lot of user demand for *more* stable versions of
>> Fedora. I've seen none whatever for less stable versions.
> Perhaps I ought to be more clear. I think we can maintain the level of
> *actual* stab
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If you're using a Fedora release today you're _already_ fighting OS bugs
> more often than most people do, I'd say. I disagree with drago's
> assertion that my description was of people who use Rawhide. It was not
> intended to be, and it wa
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > Well your point basically is "we can't/don't ship anything that is
> > stable so we should give up on that."
>
> More or less, yes.
>
> > I disagree with that. Fedora releases had som
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:31 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:17:02 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> ..snip...
>
> > If you're using a Fedora release today you're _already_ fighting OS
> > bugs more often than most people do, I'd say. I disagree with drago's
> > assertion that
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> [...]
> * Upgrading every year, with an unreliable upgrade process, is not
> something you have to do with a proper stable OS
I am not sure why you call it unreliable ... I *never* reinstall
unless I really had to (moving one installation
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> My fundamental argument is there's a bit of a
> disconnect between our release process - which is sort of aping the way
> a stable general-purpose OS would be released, but on fast-forward and
> with far fewer resources - and our actual g
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:31 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:17:02 -0700
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > ..snip...
> >
> > > If you're using a Fedora release today you're _already_ fighting OS
> > > bugs more ofte
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > [...]
> > * Upgrading every year, with an unreliable upgrade process, is not
> > something you have to do with a proper stable OS
>
> I am not sure why you call it unreliable ... I *nev
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > [...]
> > * Upgrading every year, with an unreliable upgrade process, is not
> > something you have to do with a proper stable OS
>
> I am not sure why you call it unreliable ... I *nev
Hi,
2012/11/3 Adam Williamson :
> Note
> that neither Red Hat nor Microsoft actually support major version
> upgrades for their operating systems
Just take a look at this - MS rocks here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPnehDhGa14
--
Best regards,
Michal
http://eventhorizon.pl/
https://getactiv
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > * Upgrading every year, with an unreliable upgrade process, is not
>> > something you have to do with a proper sta
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:44 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > The number of variables involved in one is astronomical. Note
> > that neither Red Hat nor Microsoft actually support major version
> > upgrades for their operating systems,
>
> Microsoft does. They do even sell upgrade boxes ...
Well, it's a
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 01:07 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 03.11.2012 00:58, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> > Microsoft don't really expect you to upgrade Windows. They expect you to
> > buy a computer with Windows X on it, use it for three years, then throw
> > it away and buy a new computer with Wi
Am 03.11.2012 00:58, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> Microsoft don't really expect you to upgrade Windows. They expect you to
> buy a computer with Windows X on it, use it for three years, then throw
> it away and buy a new computer with Windows Y on it. Red Hat expects
> something similar for RHEL - th
On 2 November 2012 17:36, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/11/3 Adam Williamson :
>> Note
>> that neither Red Hat nor Microsoft actually support major version
>> upgrades for their operating systems
>
> Just take a look at this - MS rocks here
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPnehDhGa14
S
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> My position is that the people who use Fedora and the kind of people we
> really _want_ to use Fedora can cope with it.
Maybe the majority can maybe they can't. But as evident by this thread
even fedora *developers* don't want to deal with
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
> > introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
> > operating system.
>
> I disagree. It's usable by the kind of people who use Fedora. Who like
>
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:17:02 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> ..snip...
>
> In my experience, in the last few years, Fedora stable releases have
> become much more stable. My "stable" boxes here at home I have not
> really had to poke at si
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Henrique Junior wrote:
> It is difficult, for example, to understand why we have to wait until the
> next release to have LibreOffice 3.6, since this seems an non disruptive
> update that could bring major improvements in the productivity of users who
> rely on of
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 16:32:00 -0700,
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
In a rolling release model, everyone deals with foo-1.0 to foo-2.0, then
a week later they deal with bar-1.0 to bar-2.0, then a week later they
deal with monkeys-1.0 to monkeys-2.0
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 12:35:08PM +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> I understand that "regular users" are not Fedora's main target, but it
> is a general-purpose operating system in the sense that it can be used
> by people who want to have a stable working environment with all the
> latest things fro
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 10:52 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > My position is that the people who use Fedora and the kind of people we
> > really _want_ to use Fedora can cope with it.
>
> Maybe the majority can maybe they can't. But as evident by
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +, mike cloaked wrote:
> Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but
> one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only two repos to
> maintain - whilst in Fedora it is 5 repos! One might wonder whether
> there is less effort needed t
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 09:37 -0200, Henrique Junior wrote:
> The guys behind openSUSE created a good approach with Tumbleweed. By
> adding this repo users can opt-in to the (semi)rolling model.
> Tumbleweed is more like a pool where updated, stable, non disruptive
> software can be installed and I
Am 03.11.2012 01:09, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 01:07 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 03.11.2012 00:58, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>>> Microsoft don't really expect you to upgrade Windows. They expect you to
>>> buy a computer with Windows X on it, use it for three years, th
Am 03.11.2012 11:35, schrieb Nikos Roussos:
> In that sense, and from my point of view, if we had to rethink our release
> model and dedicate time and energy on a
> new approach, it would make more sense to have an extended support release
> (providing only security updates after
> 13 months)
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:26:43 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I don't think rolling release and getting work done are incompatible.
> As I mentioned, I run Branched permanently on my desktop - so it
> rolls from 'pre-Alpha' state through to 'stable' state briefly and
> then back to 'pre-Alpha' agai
On 03.11.2012 18:26, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 10:52 +0100, drago01 wrote:
Eh? That's not what I said at all. What I said was that I think in a
well-managed rolling release model, users would actually run into
trouble only about as often as they already do anyway. I don't mean
On 03.11.2012 19:17, Alek Paunov wrote:
Adam, I think that the current "rolling release" discussion as many
other "high interest" general ones in the recent months are pointless
without some form of explicit definition and statistics of the current
(and desired) distinct Fedora user profiles.
J
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 11:11:18 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
In any case, I think we do need to look at release cycle changes or at
the very least Feature process revamp.
And get comments from other than developers. Marketting might have serious
concerns about the loss of exposure not having
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +, mike cloaked wrote:
>
> > Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but
> > one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only two repos to
> > maintain - whilst in Fedora it is
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 07:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
> I'd rather see us do a better job with rawhide so that more people use it and
> a better job at making upgrades go smoother so that people just trying
> to get stuff done with Fedora have a better experience.
Then the questio
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 00:26 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 07:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
>
> > I'd rather see us do a better job with rawhide so that more people use it
> > and
> > a better job at making upgrades go smoother so that people just trying
> >
Adam Williamson wrote:
>On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 09:37 -0200, Henrique Junior wrote:
>
>> The guys behind openSUSE created a good approach with Tumbleweed. By
>> adding this repo users can opt-in to the (semi)rolling model.
>> Tumbleweed is more like a pool where updated, stable, non disruptive
>>
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 02:12 +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote:
>
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> >On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 09:37 -0200, Henrique Junior wrote:
> >
> >> The guys behind openSUSE created a good approach with Tumbleweed. By
> >> adding this repo users can opt-in to the (semi)rolling model.
> >> Tum
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 00:26:08 +0100,
Michael Scherer wrote:
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 07:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
I do not run it, so I cannot judge, but I think the first step to fix
something is to know the exact problems to fix. If the issue is "too
much breakage", how can
I think we could, just for fun if you like, pursue making a good plan of
how the transition would be and what changes should be done.
Consider it objectively.
What changes would have to be done the OS?
What changes in infrastructure?
What tools do we need?
This could be a good exercise. The wik
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 09:29 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +, mike cloaked wrote:
>
> > Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but
> > one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only two repos to
> > maintain - whilst in
On 11/04/2012 12:17 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 09:29 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +, mike cloaked wrote:
Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but
one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only
On 11/03/2012 12:30 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> * Upgrading every year, with an unreliable upgrade process, is not
>> something you have to do with a proper stable OS
>
> On some stable OSs you cannot upgrade *at all*. It is true that some O
Panu Matilainen writes:
> On 11/04/2012 12:17 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
>> And I am doubting that changing the release model will suddenly make
>> people do QA.
> Adam's point is that reducing the number of branches requiring QA should
> permit more thorough QA with the scarce resources availab
Simon Lukasik writes:
> Currently, each Fedora release is kept alive for 13(+/-) months. There
> were dozens of threads about shortening or prolonging period -- but I am
> not sure if something like the following has been ever discussed:
> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==1 -- is alive for
Am 04.11.2012 17:05, schrieb Tom Lane:
> Simon Lukasik writes:
>> Currently, each Fedora release is kept alive for 13(+/-) months. There
>> were dozens of threads about shortening or prolonging period -- but I am
>> not sure if something like the following has been ever discussed:
>
>> Each N-t
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:36 +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/11/3 Adam Williamson :
> > Note
> > that neither Red Hat nor Microsoft actually support major version
> > upgrades for their operating systems
Adam, this is plainly untrue for Microsoft, they always supported
upgrading to
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:44 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > much lower levels of churn,
>
> No they actually have way higher levels of churn ... just think about
> it ... in fedora we are talking about 6 months worth of chrun not 5+
> years. Can't speak for Red Hat but maybe this is one of the reasons
>
On 04.11.2012 19:25, Simo Sorce wrote:
note that this is "also" our strength in some respect because it allows
the system to evolve a lot more quickly, but it also means upgrades are
Indeed.
simply going to break stuff, and that's not so great for desktop
environments and scare the hell off
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 12:18 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:36 +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2012/11/3 Adam Williamson :
> > > Note
> > > that neither Red Hat nor Microsoft actually support major version
> > > upgrades for their operating systems
>
> Adam, th
On 11/04/2012 05:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Lukasik writes:
>> Currently, each Fedora release is kept alive for 13(+/-) months. There
>> were dozens of threads about shortening or prolonging period -- but I am
>> not sure if something like the following has been ever discussed:
>
>> Each N-th
For microsoft perhaps, but Ubuntu, Debian ? Upgrading from a release
to the next is trivial, and in general work well. Sure, probably the
update to the core system component is more light, no Usrmove, no
systemd, or something like this. And preserving, updating the new
configuration based on the pr
- Original Message -
> From: "Bruno Wolff III"
> To: "Kevin Fenzi"
> Cc: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Saturday, November 3, 2012 7:37:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Rolling release model philosophy (was Re: Anaconda is totally
> trashing t
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
>
> This is a very valid argument. I understand this is a devel list, so we
> should stay on the technical level, but if we discuss such broad changes
> that affect the whole project, we should also take into account other
> aspects.
>
> Switc
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:55:38 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> and one "stable" release ( valid for 2 maybe 3 years ) for those in the
> community that want something they dont constantly having to upgrade to
> and can deploy on their servers. ( ofcourse to have a stable release we
> first and
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:22:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I disagree. It's usable by the kind of people who use Fedora. Who like
> shiny cutting-edge stuff and don't mind dealing with wonkiness
> constantly. I wouldn't dream of putting any regular person on a Fedora
> install, quite frankly. It'
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 12:18 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:36 +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > 2012/11/3 Adam Williamson :
>> > > Note
>> > > that neither Red Hat nor Microsoft actually support major v
* drago01 [05/11/2012 08:00] :
>
> That's like selling a car and telling the customer "it might not move
> at all in that case you are on your own sorry".
This is par the course for proprietary software (with the added bonus
that you can't actually fix it since you don't have the source code).
Em
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * drago01 [05/11/2012 08:00] :
>>
>> That's like selling a car and telling the customer "it might not move
>> at all in that case you are on your own sorry".
>
> This is par the course for proprietary software (with the added bonus
> that yo
mike cloaked píše v Ne 04. 11. 2012 v 21:44 +:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann
> wrote:
>
>
> This is a very valid argument. I understand this is a devel
> list, so we should stay on the technical level, but if we
> discuss such broad
On Monday, November 05, 2012 06:56 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
mike cloaked píše v Ne 04. 11. 2012 v 21:44 +:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann
wrote:
This is a very valid argument. I understand this is a devel
list, so we should stay on the technical level, b
On 11/05/2012 01:13 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Monday, November 05, 2012 06:56 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
mike cloaked píše v Ne 04. 11. 2012 v 21:44 +:
Does anyone have any reliable statistics about the number of users who
feel that release parties and codenames are important to them?
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
>
> Release parties and codenames were just examples. It's about the buzz
> around releases. You can check Google Trends where you find peaks in
> number of searches for Fedora after every release. Or fp.org monthly
> stats. You would lose rev
On 11/05/2012 01:11 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:55:38 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
and one "stable" release ( valid for 2 maybe 3 years ) for those in the
community that want something they dont constantly having to upgrade to
and can deploy on their servers. ( ofcourse t
> The entire QA team (and the entire anaconda team, for that matter) is
> currently spending virtually all its time trying to help bash the new
> anaconda into something vaguely resembling shape for a fairly
> arbitrary
> release deadline, so we can ship something called 'the Fedora 18
> stable
> r
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 19:47 +0200, Alek Paunov wrote:
> On 04.11.2012 19:25, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > note that this is "also" our strength in some respect because it allows
> > the system to evolve a lot more quickly, but it also means upgrades are
>
> Indeed.
>
> > simply going to break stuff,
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:35:53 -0500,
Kamil Paral wrote:
My idea would be to have two releases:
== Fedora Stable ==
* A release for general users with low volume of security fixes and important
bug fixes.
** Bug fixes would be pushed monthly and QA would be performed on this monthly
batc
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
>
> Release parties and codenames were just examples. It's about the buzz
> around releases. You can check Google Trends where you find peaks in
> number of searches for Fedora after every release. Or fp.org monthly
> stats. You would lose revi
Tom Lane wrote:
>Simon Lukasik writes:
>> Currently, each Fedora release is kept alive for 13(+/-) months.
>There
>> were dozens of threads about shortening or prolonging period -- but I
>am
>> not sure if something like the following has been ever discussed:
>
>> Each N-th Fedora release -- wh
On 11/02/2012 07:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sure, like I said in another mail, we've got better at that than before.
But as I also said in the same mail, you still have to do a version
upgrade every twelve months. That alone is ridiculous for a 'stable'
operating system.
This is an importa
> >* A release for general users with low volume of security fixes and
> >important bug fixes.
> >** Bug fixes would be pushed monthly and QA would be performed on
> >this monthly batch of updates.
>
> Some packages need more than bug fix updates (unless you are taking a
> very
> broad view of what
> >> This tool is still not going to be able to do magic and there will
> >> be
> >> config
> >> things that still need to be redone. Third party repos will still
> >> be
> >> an issue.
> >
> >It's a clean installation, I don't think it needs any magic. Also
> >third-party repos are not a problem,
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 13:23:59 -0500,
Kamil Paral wrote:
>> This tool is still not going to be able to do magic and there will
>> be
>> config
>> things that still need to be redone. Third party repos will still
>> be
>> an issue.
>
>It's a clean installation, I don't think it needs any magi
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
>>> >It's a clean installation, I don't think it needs any magic. Also
>>> >third-party repos are not a problem, we just ignore them and they
>>> >won't influence the new system. People will add them manually again
>>> >once in 18 months.
>
On 11/05/2012 05:28 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 11/02/2012 07:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sure, like I said in another mail, we've got better at that than before.
But as I also said in the same mail, you still have to do a version
upgrade every twelve months. That alone is ridiculous for
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
>
> On 11/05/2012 05:28 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> > On 11/02/2012 07:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >> Sure, like I said in another mail, we've got better at that than
before.
> >> But as I also said in the same mail, you still have to do a version
> >>
On 4 November 2012 23:57, drago01 wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 12:18 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:36 +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > 2012/11/3 Adam Williamson :
>>> > > Note
>>> > > that nei
On 05.11.2012 15:57, Simo Sorce wrote:
A possibly viable alternative for the ABIs freezing (which we can not
ensure anyway) is the C/C++/etc tooling - If we arm upstreams, packagers
and 3rd parties with powerful source tools (API migration/checking),
just like Google does internally, unsing the
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:53:37 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> That's called CentOS,
> Nope ... CentOS/RHEL is a different end of extremes.
>
> 7 years+ life-time, no API changes, etc.
> What is lacking is a middle ground between "Fedora" and "CentOS".
>
> Something with a life-time of "~2 years",
85 matches
Mail list logo
