On 11/16/2010 7:03 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Do we really need to continually rehash the discussion of why anyone would
> ever use RHEL4???
No, but we needed to hash it enough to establish that your 'unstable'
comment about RHEL5 had to do with quirks of your environment or
choices, not that RHEL5 is an unsuitable platform for running subversion.
> This is definitely off topic, but it's not RHEL4 or RHEL5 that's unstable.
> It's the engineering tools, if you run them on whichever is the latest
> version of RHEL. Because the developers who produce the tools don't have
> access to the latest OS until the same time when you do.
That's not true in general. Fedora releases cycle much faster than RHEL
and almost everything that appears in RHEL has been available in fedora
for a while, getting the bugs shaken out. And RHEL itself has beta
releases with ample time for remaining bugs to be found and fixed.
> That means when
> it's released, they start debugging things at the rate customers complain
> about them.
But, in many, perhaps most, cases, the application developers fix the
bugs only in new releases where they are also adding new features. How
much support would you expect subversion developers to throw at a bug
you might find in a 1.4.x release, for example? And RHEL by policy
rarely includes 'new feature' changes until their next major release.
> For these engineering tools, I choose to run the fully patched oldest
> supported OS, and only upgrade when support is ending for it. Hence, I am
> currently upgrading from RHEL4 to RHEL5, because RHEL6 was just released.
> Can we let this topic die now?
Yes, as long as it is clear that nothing is wrong with RHEL5 (or you
have a specific problem you've experienced that might affect others).
But I still can't quite reconcile this concept with compiling some
things straight from developers' source.
Received on 2010-11-16 18:04:45 CET