Bug backlog - now and future. Some proposals.

[Tim]

Jim Cornette:
>>> In order to advance progress for the releases a short life cycle is
>>> needed to ensure programs do not remain static and outdated.

Tim:
>>  I do not agree.  Programs can advance and change, without the OS having
>>  to change.  OS and applications are separate things.

Jon Stanley:
> Where do you draw the line here?  The kernel, for example gets "lots*
> of updates, most of them not for the sake of the fact that we can
> update it, but rather that there were bugs that users reported that
> were fixed.  Do we not fix bugs that actually exist for the sake of
> stability for users that have not experienced them?

That's a different direction than the point I was countering:  That some
believe that applications cannot and will not progress if you don't
change the OS, as well.  It's a furphy.  Applications can change and
advance, lots, while still running on the same unchanged OS.  They're
two very different things.

> I hate to say it, but RHEL may be the product that you're looking for,
> where this exact thing happens.  Between update releases, only
> critical/security bugs are fixed.  Anything that's not a showstopper
> waits til the next update relasee.

I have played with CentOS, but it *seems* to suffer from the problem I
outlined above.  People looking after the applications seem to
artificially stagnate them.

I'll say it again, the OS and applications are separate things, you can
advance them individually.

-- 
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
 important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.