What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

[Les Mikesell]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> 
>> I still believe that with some minor changes you could please everyone,
>> including people who want a different pace on different machines.  You
>> just need a fast-track, slow-track scheme for installing updates
> 
> More update tracks = more maintainership work, more possible combinations of
> packages (thus less testing), so not very likely to happen and may well be
> counterproductive (untested combinations of updates can cause problems).

I don't think you are following what I'm trying to say.  Slow-track and 
fast-track are exactly the same with a delay factor.  If you don't make 
any mistakes with packages entering fast-track, there are no changes and 
no extra work regarding what shows up in slow-track.  If you do make a 
mistake, slow-track gives you a chance to fix it before you destroy all 
your user's critical work and fedora's reputation along with it.  The 
fast-track _is_ the large-scale testing (like you have now, but it would 
be worth something instead of just representing some ephemeral mix of 
changing package never to be seen again...).

>> and some cutoff (say 3 months in) for feature-change updates to a release.
> 
> That would definitely not "please everyone". I don't want such a cutoff, and
> if it really has to be introduced at some point, I'd be really unhappy with
> anything less than 7-9 months in (giving me a 1-3 month old next release to
> upgrade to to get my new features). And I'm sure there are more people like
> me (just read e.g. Arthur Pemberton's comments, and it can't just be us 2
> either).

I picked that off the top of my head.  If you want to push it out to 5 
months or even 6 so the wild and crazy changes can continue without 
pause as the next release starts, fine.  That would still leave 6 months 
where a release is actually usable for work instead of never.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com