Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Mon Nov 22 19:18:40 UTC 2010

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:18:04AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > The way I see it, is we have:
> > 
> > rawhide (and for a part of the cycle Fedora #+1 testing)
> > Fedora #
> > Fedora #-1
> > Fedora #-2
> > 
> > Fedora #+1 is for people who want the bleeding edge
> > Fedora #   is for people who want the latest and greatest without too much
> >             bleeding
> > Fedora #-1 is for people who want it relatively safe and slow
> > Fedora #-2 Does not fit into this picture
> Quite a few people take this view, but I'm not sure it's entirely
> reliable. As I see it there may well be those who use the system as you
> suggest - they upgrade every six months but to the *last* release, not
> the current one, so they're always running F#-1 - but I'm fairly sure
> there's also those who actually use the current lifecycle system for its
> stated purpose, which isn't to allow you to constantly run one version
> out of date, but to run each version for up to twelve months. So they
> ran F8, then F10, then F12, then F14 - skipping 9, 11 and 13 so they
> only have to deal with the pain of an update every 12 months. To these
> types of users, it doesn't necessarily make sense to treat a -1 release
> differently from a 'current' release.
Note that by and large I agree with the combination of Hans's post (what
I wishfully would like Fedora's update policy to be) and yours (that
currently to various different people it's one of what Hans posts or an
opportunity to skip a release or a no-big-updates-once-released all around).

I'd just like to point out in response to this paragraph that a few people
have posted that they appreciate both an initial rolling release style and
a 13 month release cycle.  They said that they install a Fedora for testing
purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
they test the software in their environment.  Then, the update pace slows
down at about the same time their ready to push things out to the machines
in their env.

I think there's likely better ways that they could achieve this if we were
optimizing for this, though.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20101122/9da9e83f/attachment.bin 

More information about the devel mailing list