New kernel, should be the default

[Richard Hally]

Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:

>On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 19:16 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  
>
>>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:39:24 +0200, Matias Féliciano wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>We can expect that new kernels are better (bug or security fix).
>>>      
>>>
>>We _hope_ that it's true, but we cannot rely on it, and certainly
>>not enough to make a new kernel the default for everyone.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>We have relied on it for *years* now. The new kernel has always been the
>default (at least since up2date has existed). I appreciate the enormous
>level of skill and involvement you have, but don't you "certainly not
>enough to make [it] the default" me on this one!
>
>A change was made, and it was not communicated (or I missed it). Was it
>at least consulted among the devel community? Is this a "done deal"?
>Because personally, I liked it better the other way. Boot the new kernel
>by default, keep the old kernel around for safety.
>
>Cheers,
>
>  
>
Please consider the option of *not* having rpm,up2date,yum et al change 
the "default=" parameter. Leave it at whatever the user sets it! For 
those that want the latest, they specify default=0. For those that want 
the safety of the old kernel they  specify default=1.  If the updater 
does't change it , everyone gets what they specify! It seems so obvious.
Richard Hally