[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: long term support release



Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

If a minute downtime is millions of USD, you surely can afford a few
thousands to set up several machines and failover, soy you /can/ do
the patching and rebooting without visible downtime.
And testing of your failover system, and practicing emergency drills,
and....
What process transformed mid/end life FC3 and FC6 into very stable,
reliable OS's very much like the subsequent RHEL cut?  I can't be the
only person who sees the difference at those points from the previous
fedora versions.


Nothing did. EL-4 and EL-5 were cut from pre-releases of FC3 and
FC6... not mid/end-life versions. Fixes in final FC3/6 were pushed
upstream and vice versa but the 2 diverged in a yellow wood at least a
month before FC3 or 6 were released. So by the time  FC3 and 6 were
released EL-4 and EL-5 was already set in stone. You can get FC3/6
stuff to work on an EL-4/5 box but only to an extent.

So there were no actual metrics or systematic processes used to transform the buggy FC2 and FC4/5 releases into the fairly usable FC3/FC6 versions? That's hard to believe, and especially that it just happened to converge with the RHEL releases - unless it is the fixes from the RHEL beta process simply overwhelming the normal fedora updates and forcing stability. And as for differences between FC6 and RHEL5, I thought that the Centos group reported that some binaries were not even rebuilt from their FC6 versions. Did I miss something there?

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]