On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:58:23AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters <jonathan(a)jonmasters.org>
wrote:
> > > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> > > I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will
die
> > > soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
+1. IMHO, The N-1 (F11) release should get minimal updates.
> If Fedora is going to be a rolling update package collection (despite
> what Kevin tries to claim about some mythical "semi-rolling", that's
> what we are getting in some quarters), then stop the releases every 6
> months. There's no point; put a little more effort into the respins
> instead and release those every 4-6 months as point releases. Have an
> annual roll-up release and then keep rolling.
This is interesting... Similar in spirit to the Unity team's Respins.
There could be only one "released supported distribution" (note, not a
version, there would be no version, so no more of this N-1, N-2
nonsense) - just a rawhide snapshot, spun out into media, but with
updates always flowing...
I'd like to see this.
Oh - we have this! It's called rawhide. Restore the ISO generator
process every so often so people can get something to install from,
and you're good to go.
The _only_ reason to name something with a 'version' or a 'release' is
to provide a set point for consistency, either in people's minds
(marketing), or to provide a technical baseline for interoperability.
It is a reason but it's not the only reason. Semi-rolling releases allow
a subset of the entire packager community to work on an update as a set and
then push them when they're known to work together. Currently rawhide is
not so coherent.
We could change rawhide from a pure rolling to a semi-rolling model but then
would we need to have a rawerhide?
-Toshio