On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 23:04 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> In short: Want higher-quality updates for previous releases? Then push
> version upgrades wherever possible (even and especially for libraries, as
> long as they're ABI-compatible or can be group-pushed with a small set of
> rebuilt reverse dependencies)!
I don't agree with this at all. It's just abusing a stable release cycle
to try and make it into something it isn't.
I should probably clarify where I'm coming from on this, as my position
is probably more nuanced than my mails so far would seem to suggest. I
don't necessarily think Fedora works best as a project which does stable
releases every six months and supports at least two of them at a time
(and often three). As I've written elsewhere, I'd very much like to look
into the possibility of changing that.
It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at
time at all but to have one and update it constantly. And I actually
rather suspect that would be a model that would work well for Fedora,
and I'd like to look into adopting it.
Interesting topic (much more so then flaming about the updates policy)
I think that we can (and sort of do already) have both.
The way I see it, is we have:
rawhide (and for a part of the cycle Fedora #+1 testing)
Fedora #+1 is for people who want the bleeding edge
Fedora # is for people who want the latest and greatest without too much
Fedora #-1 is for people who want it relatively safe and slow
Fedora #-2 Does not fit into this picture
So taking for example the much much discussed KDE rebases. I think that
doing a KDE rebase for Fedora #+1 is a no brainer, for Fedora # is fine
as long as it is properly tested and for Fedora #-1 KDE should NOT be
rebased. This also matches well with what the KDE people have been
reporting, were they can get plenty of testing on Fedora # but all most
none on Fedora #-1. I think that the few KDE users which remain on
Fedora #-1, do so because they appreciate some stability, and thus
should not get (a largely untested) KDE rebase.
This is also how I in practice deal with must updates for packages I
maintain I try to fix any serious bugs reported against Fedora # and am
a lot more conservative when it comes to Fedora #-1.
Note that Fedora #-2 does not fit into this view for things at all,
Fedora #-2 is meant to allow people to skip a Fedora release. But in
practice I think this works out badly, because a relatively new Fedora
release like Fedora 14 tends to still have some rough edges and get lots
of updates/churn (and thus possible regressions, despite our best effords).
This is not at a good point in its cycle to upgrade to for people who like
it stable (and sticking with 1 release for an entire year to me sounds
like liking it stable).
Where as the one which has already been out for 5-6 months (Fedora 13) has
seen most rough edges polished away with updates, and the updates rate will
So maybe it is time we dropped the support duration for a release from 13
to 11 months, and make clear that people should not skip releases.