[CentOS] Re: Contemplating Move -- [OT] Fedora Core

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 16:09, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

> > RHL X.0 releases were (unofficially) beta like FCx is now.
> > RHL X.2 and X.3 were the same product with about everything
> > fixed.  Likewise FCx is where new code first meets widely
> > varying conditions
> 
> Be _careful_ with that assertion.  Because it would also mean
> that Red Hat Linux 9 was just as much of a X.0 release as Red
> Hat Linux 8.0.  This is simply _not_ true!

I'll mostly agree, but RH9 was never called 9.0.

> > Yes, every FC release introduces some new major version
> > number updates in upstream packages, where the updates
> > within the release don't.
> 
> Again, I disagree with this assertion on Fedora Core, just
> like I would on Red Hat Linux 9.

There were differences in how extreme the changes were.  I'm
not sure you can make any kind of judgement about how big
an improvement each was over the last much less a prediction
about whether the next version will be. 

> > FC3 is at the end of the cycle where the new bugs in the
> > new code are fixed,
> 
> But let us not forget that most of FC3's lessons were based
> on those learned in FC2.  Just like in FC1 from RHL9 and from
> RHL8 before that, etc..., before a new version was made.

If you base your logic on the major version numbers of the
included packages you can make some kind of point here, but
in practice your individual problems are going to be shaken
out in some obscure minor-rev update or a backport of something
fixed upstream - and these can introduce new problems too.
I don't disagree with your observation. I just think it
overgeneralizes the issue and it makes more sense to look
back at the number of updates in the repository at the end of
a cycle to judge how much was broken in the release than to
assume that an application version-level jump is going to cause
more problems than it solves in the release that introduces it.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com