Re: Pull off AIGLX repoistory?

[alan <alan clueserver org>]

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

> Sean <seanlkml sympatico ca> wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:05:10 +0200
> > "Chris Chabot" <chabotc 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.