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

Re: starting Fedora Server SIG

On 14.11.2008 19:09, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 18:54 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I'm not saying we keep everything forever, I am saying we might consider thinking a bit more before deciding to implement a brand new system as solution to an existing problem.
That IMHO is a general problem in Fedora and IMHO one of the biggest problems of Fedora.
But it's also one of the often-posited strengths of Fedora -- we push
the edge forward which in the end benefits everyone

Well, I don't think or meant that we should slow down. But we afaics should sometimes offer the old known to working stuff as alternative when new shiny long term replacement is not a fully working replacement yet for 99.5 % of the users.

But yeah, it's hard to draw a line where a "alternative" is wise/needed and how much work it's worth to keep it running. I for one would have said that in the Juju case a alternative would have been wise and worth the work for one release. Otoh is imho was good that we didn't offer a alternative for the X-Server 1.5 to make the proprietary drivers work -- but I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with the latter.

One examples from the last two years: the new firewire stack JuJu. It afaics is a improvement now, but it was a bit to early when we shipped it as the "one and only" Firewire stack.

Fedora as a whole IMHO should act a bit more like the kernel developers that have that "no regressions in new kernels" as goal -- they don't reach that goal completely but they are quite close afaics.

Kernel developers might argue about the success there.  It definitely
doesn't match a lot of experiences I see from blogs, bugzilla, random
other reading of the internets :/

Well, you have a good point, but they are afaics noticeable better then Fedora.


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