I do believe that would be a splendid idea indeed.
REPEAT: not happening anytime soon:
Everybody wants rolling releases in theory. I personally would settle for longer release cycles with more noticeable changes between releases. And if I could always have the latest version of end user applications no matter what release i'm using that would be great. I don't see why you should have to upgrade the entire os just to have the latest version of applications. Keep mission critical stuff static but keep stuff like firefox always up to date. Heck it doesn't even have to be 100% up to date you can have a testing repo like in arch and if an application makes it two weeks or so without incident push it to everyone. And come up with an easy to use package rollback system and it's almost perfect. If my browser has a minor annoying bug i'll live with it but if xorg breaks there goes my entire day. I don't believe that there has to be a compromise between having a stable system and having new versions of end user applications.
Whoever came up with the phrase "There is no such thing as a stupid question" obviously never had the internet.
I like mamamia88's suggestions.
For now, I use LTS releases with backports and PPA's for the apps I want current, when I can. Ubuntu is great for that.
One Psychiatrist's Definition of Insanity: Knowing what one should do and doing differently
Backup Your System!
Using windows OS most at work, didn't have any sense about rolling releases. Looking at the post through the links above, seems it has much more advantages over disadvantages.
Hope it to be applied.
I like the idea of having an yearly release, that still provides updates to user packages throughout the year, but the core system stays stable.
I have used a few rolling release distros, and it is great not having to re-install or do a huge upgrade every 6 months, but things tend to break, and you end up having to re-install anyways lol.
If they can keep it stable and be a rolling release that would be great, but I can't see it. They would end up having a rolling release on a separate branch, and still have to provide the 6 months release for people and companies that need a stable desktop OS.
Do you folks like coffee?
People tend to over-estimate the demand for rolling-release distros, but the fact is that stable-release distros (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Slackware, Red Hat, CentOS, etc.) are consistently more popular by a wide margin (especially at the "enterprise" level). Most users who think they want rolling release would in truth be better served by LTS plus a few PPA's for their most-used applications, IMNSHO.
"I believe humans get a lot done, not because we're smart, but because we have thumbs so we can make coffee." --Flash Rosenberg