Some notes from fallback mode

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:48:04 -0400, AJ (Adam) wrote:

> > > IMO, it could be much more productive if you also
> > > evaluated Fedora 16 development instead of Fedora 17 development.
> > 
> > Sigh.
> > 
> > I've been running Rawhide for a very long time.  As of the last year or
> > so, though, almost every post I make draws a response like this.
> 
> I encourage you to ignore responses like this.  Rawhide needs to be
> consumable.

Then something needs to be done about it.

At least packagers ought to stop pushing newer packages to F-16 than
what they build for Rawhide.

Even better, if they push SONAME bumps to Rawhide, they should work
actively on fixing broken deps and/or porting to new APIs if necessary.

If they can't keep Rawhide as fresh as F-16, because the build for Rawhide
fails, that's a common scenario with Rawhide, which also makes it hard
or impossible to upgrade _to_ Rawhide due to broken deps and violated
upgrade paths.

Where to find Rawhide users, who run it daily? As would be necessary to
test it like a F-16 test release. And those aren't popular either. Many
Fedora users avoid updates-testing like the plague and expect the Fedora
Project to do all the testing.

-- 
Fedora release 16 (Verne) - Linux 3.1.0-0.rc6.git0.3.fc16.x86_64
loadavg: 0.08 0.20 0.26