RFE: Retire Fedora Core 4 only _after_ FC6 has been released.

[Gilboa Davara]

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 14:23 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 14:50 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > I've been following a very interesting discussion in fedora-list about
> > the recent transfer of FC3 to Fedora Legacy.
> > 
> > Following Rahul's suggestion, I'm starting this discussion in -devel.
> > 
> > I'm asking the FC foundation to consider the following:
> > 
> > 1. Fedora's policy dictates that old releases (Current - 2) will be
> > retired once the new release hits Test2. 
> 
> I'm missing in your whole reasoning the link between the transfer to
> legacy and upgrading. You imply it, but you don't explain the causal
> relationship, which I think isn't there.
> 
> The policy actually sort of is "a few months after the next release so
> that people can see it being stable enough". A good anchor for that "few
> months" is -test2 release.

Taken from the release note:
"[59][Caution] This is a test release, not intended for end users
                 This is a test release and is provided for developers
and
                 testers to participate and provide feedback. It is not
meant
                 for end users."
Somehow, this doesn't sound too inviting.

While I agree that people should have switched to FC4 by now (though I
too use FC3 on some machines... somehow, at least for me, FC3 was a
better release), or be prepared to use FL when it EOLs.
I'm just looking to give people a-bit of extra time to sleep on it.

> 
> > This policy has one glaring
> > drawback: User that seek an upgrade can either (1) install a mid-life
> > release (FC4 in this case) or (2) install a beta release. (FC5 Test2 in
> > this case).
> 
> this is true for any update decision unless you make that decision right
> at the point in time a new release just came out.

Again, I accept that people (including myself) tend to delay things
until things smack them in the face. (God knows I do).
Having FL kick in when the current release is... released and having an
automated switch to FL tool is the best combo IMHO.
It'll give people an option to either:
A. Automatically move to FL.
B. Upgrade to a mid-life release. (FC5)
C. Upgrade to bleeding edge release. (FC6).

> 
> > This being I suspect that most users will play the waiting game before
> > making a decision. They'll wait for the FC5 release and check how it
> > behaves before making a decision, which in turn, will leave them
> > vulnerable to security exploits.
> 
> I don't agree with this "which in turn". Fedora Legacy *WILL* release
> updates for such security problems. The only thing that changed is which
> people will provide the updates. That's it. Well and the policy that
> only the most critical things (eg security updates and data corruption
> bugs etc) get fixed. But.. don't you want that from a 14th month old
> distro.. if it works for you for 14 months, you don't want mass upgrades
> to new packages just for a few features you obviously didn't need anyway
> (because if you did you'd have upgraded)
> 

My main point is:
Switching over to FL isn't stream-lined/automated.
Most unsuspecting/novice users, (which are the ones most likely to
delay/forget the upgrade, and ones most likely to miss the
"hand-over-to-FL" message) are the ones least likely to be able to do
the FL transition by themselves.
Even-worse, these are the last users on this planet that you'll want to
leave unprotected by default. (Again, as the FL transition is mostly
manual)

> 
> 
> > Extending the life of FC4 by (a mere?) ~2 months, will give FC4 users
> > seeking an upgrade a chance to make an informed decision based upon how
> > FC6 behaves, without leaving them open to security risks.
> 
> And then the next request will be that "FC5 is so new, please allow us 3
> months before FC5 becomes stable". And voila, you're back at "test 2"
> again.

Again I point you to the test release - release notes.
Even FC foundation treats test releases differently then normal
releases. 

> 
> The current policy is based on the idea "You go to the next release. But
> we'll be nice and give you several months for that next release to be
> seen as stable". That's it. You are effectively asking to extend it a
> full release.. (well you're not asking that, but that's the implication
> of what you're asking given the very obvious and known next question
> that will happen)
> 

Why stop there? How about giving 3 year, RHEL like support? j/k.
No. FC is a community driven (well, sort of) bleeding edge distro and
should stay that way.
I just find the EOL at test2 release (especially considering the
possibility of test3/4/5/6 releases) to be... well... less then
desirable.

Gilboa