Pull off AIGLX repoistory?

[alan]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Horst H. von Brand wrote:

> Sean <seanlkml at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:05:10 +0200
>> "Chris Chabot" <chabotc at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Either we embrace that we put everyone on a rawhide kind of release cycle,
>>> with large updates and (relatively major) version changes of the components,
>>> or we embrace that a release is a somewhat stable platform..
>
>> Well, you bring up an interesting point, but it's not what I think really
>> started this discussion.  It would be a _new_ policy to only release
>> security patches for each release and not update the kernel or other
>> components at all.
>
> That means backporting all kinds of "interesting" stuff. If somebody is
> willing to do (or pay somebody doing) that /huge/ and uninteresting job, go
> right ahead. Nobody stops you from doing a "stable" Fedora branch (like the
> stable kernel series).

Been there. Done that.

Backporting security patches is a bitch.  It takes a lot of time and a lot 
of testing.  (I used to do that for an Redhat varient distribution.)

It is not a lot of fun.

-- 
"I want to live just long enough to see them cut off Darl's head and
  stick it on a pike as a reminder to the next ten generations that some
  things come at too high a price. I would look up into his beady eyes and
  wave, like this... (*wave*!). Can your associates arrange that for me,
  Mr. McBride?"
                       - Vir "Flounder" Kotto, Sr. VP, IBM Empire.