kernel development approach for fedora
Jeroen de Haas
dajero at dajero.nl
Sat Oct 11 12:03:55 UTC 2008
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 17:19 -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> Mail Lists wrote:
> > On 10/10/2008 03:49 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> Mail Lists wrote:
> >>> In this new mode we would have only 2 streams - current development
> >>> and stable.
> >
> >> There are a few distributions that do this - Gentoo, Arch etc. Each has
> >> it's advantages and disadvantages. One of the problems of rolling
> >> release model distributions in a mass scale is that, it is pretty
> >> difficult to stabilize even to a nominal level.
> >>
> >> Rahul
> >>
> >
> > While that is true, the argument goes that large periodic releases
> > has drawbacks too - and the kernel seems to be do pretty well with its
> > approach ... I still wonder whether the kernel way may work for fedora ..
>
> The rolling release model works well for distributions that simply follow
> upstream, but Fedora is often *ahead* of upstream on several features. We need
> to maintain a bit more stability with the baseline package so we can safely add
> the innovative patches that aren't yet in Linus's kernel tree.
>
> -- Chris
>
For me, Fedora is a good compromise between a rolling release model and
the discrete releases model that some other distributions use. I do not
have to wait half a year before I can use a more recent version of
Banshee, Pidgin etc. than which was originally included at the time of
release. Besides, I prefer Fedora's use of bleeding edge software which
is nevertheless quite stable to the rolling releases of Gentoo and Arch.
Jeroen
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list