long term support release

[Les Mikesell]

Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

>>>> If a minute downtime is millions of USD, you surely can afford a few
>>>> thousands to set up several machines and failover, soy you /can/ do
>>>> the patching and rebooting without visible downtime.
>>> And testing of your failover system, and practicing emergency drills,
>>> and....
>> What process transformed mid/end life FC3 and FC6 into very stable,
>> reliable OS's very much like the subsequent RHEL cut?  I can't be the
>> only person who sees the difference at those points from the previous
>> fedora versions.
>>
> 
> Nothing did. EL-4 and EL-5 were cut from pre-releases of FC3 and
> FC6... not mid/end-life versions. Fixes in final FC3/6 were pushed
> upstream and vice versa but the 2 diverged in a yellow wood at least a
> month before FC3 or 6 were released. So by the time  FC3 and 6 were
> released EL-4 and EL-5 was already set in stone. You can get FC3/6
> stuff to work on an EL-4/5 box but only to an extent.

So there were no actual metrics or systematic processes used to 
transform the buggy FC2 and FC4/5 releases into the fairly usable 
FC3/FC6 versions?  That's hard to believe, and especially that it just 
happened to converge with the RHEL releases - unless it is the fixes 
from the RHEL beta process simply overwhelming the normal fedora updates 
and forcing stability.  And as for differences between FC6 and RHEL5, I 
thought that the Centos group reported that some binaries were not even 
rebuilt from their FC6 versions.  Did I miss something there?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com