Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 05:29:12PM +0200 I heard the voice of > Ivan Voras, and lo! it spake thus: >> And we'll find many other people on this newsgroup who do the same, >> but not everyone's a kernel hacker, or even a decent programmer, so >> it's kind of insignificant. > > I'm not a kernel hacker, and I don't remember the last time I ran a > production system on a release longer than it took to do a buildworld, > going back to 2.1.x. My workstation runs -CURRENT, though I rarely > run -CURRENT on other production systems (rarely != never, but it is > rare). Unfortunately (for this developer-centric practice), the trend in large and/or important production environments is - as seen in Linux (and Solaris) - to severely limit major OS upgrades. Of course the existing possibility to do is excellent, but more and more end-users, especially big ones, are going with big Linux distributions that basically stay frozen (except for security upgrades) for years. And this idea gets a +1 from me - productions releases that are expected to run for years should be able to "just work" without upgrading to the "kernel of the week". To do this, a stable anchor-point is required and that's what -RELEASEes should be for. I think the fact that not all our -RELEASES are created equal (some are "extended support" releases) should be more advertised and explained.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:19 UTC