On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 10:27:52AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Martin Stransky (stransky(a)redhat.com) said:
> Adam Tkac wrote:
>> As I wrote above I disagree with you that put alpha (which will come
>> to beta really soon) to F8 is bad decision "because it is alpha". I
>> tested it and I didn't find any issues. That's why I decided put 9.5
>> to F8.
>> Adam
>
> Is a former bind maintainer I have to support Adam here. In my opinion it
> depends what package is taken and it's really a big difference between a
> huge project (like gnome/gcc) and relative small one like bind.
>
> Bind alpha/beta versions are periodically more stable than other **stable**
> projects.
It's not about comparing to other projects. Different kernel releases are
all stable, and have wildly divergent bug sets.
The issue is providing a reasonably stable usable platform - realistically,
if ISC wanted people running a version of bind in production, wouldn't they
*tag it as stable and release it*? By shipping it in a release, we're
essentially saying we know better than upstream what's appropriate for users.
Do we?
Bill
Stable release means stability is guaranted by ISC. And if stability
isn't guaranted it doesn't mean unstability. It means that you could
have problems. And I don't have problems for five months so this is
good reason that F8 bind is relative stable.
Adam
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc.