On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 10:52 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Adam Williamson
<awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> My position is that the people who use Fedora and the kind of people we
> really _want_ to use Fedora can cope with it.
Maybe the majority can maybe they can't. But as evident by this thread
even fedora *developers* don't want to deal with such stuff.
I think some of them were rather misunderstanding my point and my
suggestion, which was my fault for phrasing my initial mail in an overly
negative way (that I didn't realize until I read it back).
But rather get work done. Do you really think that users are that
much
different?
I don't think rolling release and getting work done are incompatible. As
I mentioned, I run Branched permanently on my desktop - so it rolls from
'pre-Alpha' state through to 'stable' state briefly and then back to
'pre-Alpha' again, on a constant loop - and I do almost all my work on
that. We could build a light rolling-release distro that was
substantially more reliable than that. Again, my fundamental point is
that we could achieve a sufficient level of reliability for Fedora's
purposes - the same level of reliability we currently achieve, which I
think the kinds of people we're talking about are happy with - on a
lighter release model than 'do a "stable release" every six months come
hell or high water' or 'three-track rolling, Debian style, with a very
slow-moving "stable" track'.
> Remember, I'm not
> proposing it be as bad as Rawhide; we have the whole Bodhi karma process
> to work with. I think it's plausible to design a process where people
> only rarely have trouble with updates, even ones that are theoretically
> pretty messy; about the same frequency they'd have had trouble with
> upgrading our stable releases.
That basically means you don't release anything and just release a
huge update every six months. Don't really see what this gains us
other then installation becoming an untested path.
The installation process and images have to be up2date though to be
able to deal with current hardware.
Eh? That's not what I said at all. What I said was that I think in a
well-managed rolling release model, users would actually run into
trouble only about as often as they already do anyway. I don't mean
they'd only get updates every six months, I mean they'd only get updates
which _broke stuff_ on average every six months. Or less.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net