-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11/24/2015 06:48 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
That would be FESCo. If more people hold your opinion, we should
probably file a ticket and ask them. It's definitely a valid
opinion. And it would definitely be easier for QA. But in this
case, I believe the work is worth it, because I personally know
many people who don't want to upgrade twice a year. And offering
people a way to upgrade just once a year (easily, i.e. not going
through consecutive upgrades) is something I consider essential for
an operating system.
With my FESCo hat on, I'll say this: I'd prefer that Fedora officially
supports the two-release upgrade path. From anecdotal data, a
significant percentage of our non-developer user-base is doing this
already and is comfortable with the existing risks. Improving the
situation can only serve to enhance our standing and reputation.
Historically, the reason we have not done this was twofold:
1) Way back when we were doing Anaconda-based upgrades, I think it
amounted to a technological limitation (please correct me if my
information is wrong here).
2) The QA impact is non-zero when attempting to support two-version
upgrades, but since this recommendation is coming *from* prominent QA
team members, I'm assuming that this is a non-issue.
Also, to add to the anecdotes, I've upgraded several family members
directly from Fedora 21 to Fedora 23 in the last week with no issues
whatsoever (of course, I also curate their repository selection, so
they don't end up with incompatible packages). So I'd argue that we're
already at the point where this is a real functional capability that
we should just ensure doesn't get broken in the future (as opposed to
needing to add new capabilities to enable two-version upgrades).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----