Hello Simo,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 3:42:41 PM, you wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:41 +0100
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
> The problem with all the proposals centered on the idea of N-1 as
> conservative, N as less conservative, including yours above and
> jreznik's, is that it forces all the people who expect a constant
> type of updates to upgrade twice as often, i.e. twice a year.
> Especially for the conservative folks, this will be a big annoyance.
> With low bandwidths, you have to get a CD/DVD shipped each time! In
> addition, I think the inconsistency will confuse our users a lot.
Fedora has traditionally supported upgrading from not just N-1, but
also N-2. Folks often skip releases, especially if they are aware of
problems (such as the pulseaudio and X issues) with a new release.
I think you have to decide if you are siding for people with low
bandwidth or cutting them out.
You just said we cannot cater to people with low bandwidth.
Well stick with your point and don't swindle as soon as it doesn't help
you win an argument for argument sake ...
Users are confused and annoyed by too frequent upgrades. Those
people
are fine sticking with N and then N-1 until security updates are no
more, and only jumping from N-1 to N+1 once a year. This includes many
developers I can assure you.
Simo.
I've also run into cases where I tried to upgrade, but it failed to
install. I restored from backups, and kept using the older release
until I had time to do a fresh install. I do not believe my
experience is unique.