On 20/03/11 14:52, Matthew Willsher wrote:
>
> On 20 Mar 2011, at 14:30, Phil Perry wrote:
>>
>> Having looked at and rebuilt many packages in FasTrack, I see no difference in quality compared to the rest of the distribution. I only see a difference in severity of issue being fixed.
>
> http://www.redhat.com/rhn/rhndetails/fastrack/ agrees with you - they are indeed QA'd and production ready.  That wasn't so hard for me to Google :/
>

Thanks for that link - I'd not seen that page either. You know, I've 
seen the myth that FasTrack is somehow of lower quality and not 
considered production ready propagated quite a bit so it's nice to read 
official documentation to the contrary.

> Isn't the same true for SL users as TUV's users? That they don't want to be burden by the extra updates? Keeping them in with the main stream bugs and enhancements means that SL admins don't have the luxury of that choice.
>
> My point of view on this comes from the ideology that SL should stick to the model used by TUV as much as possible, although I do understand the SL target audience may have different goals and that the model used by SL is developed to fit that goal. Would it be true to say that one of the main goals of SL is to reduce administration costs by allowing it's users to change as little as possible once a system is up and running, rather than TUV's approach of a constantly, albeit slowly, moving target?
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>

It's not my place to offer comment on your other points so I'll leave 
that for the SL developers after the weekend :-)