Fedora release model (was Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17))
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Tue Nov 23 17:32:42 UTC 2010
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> So taking for example the much much discussed KDE rebases. I think that
>> doing a KDE rebase for Fedora #+1 is a no brainer, for Fedora # is fine
>> as long as it is properly tested and for Fedora #-1 KDE should NOT be
>> rebased. This also matches well with what the KDE people have been
>> reporting, were they can get plenty of testing on Fedora # but all most
>> none on Fedora #-1. I think that the few KDE users which remain on
>> Fedora #-1, do so because they appreciate some stability, and thus
>> should not get (a largely untested) KDE rebase.
> I hope I'm not putting words in KK's mouth again :), but I believe this
> is actually more or less what KDE team does; the current KDE update
> isn't a rebase as far as they see it, it's a minor point update. I think
> they may well not push KDE 4.6 to F13 when it comes out, but only to
> F14. (Yell at me again if I'm wrong, KK).
It's not how we used to work (F9, F10, F11 got 2 KDE rebases each), nor how
I think we SHOULD work (I think Fn-1 shouldn't be getting second-class
support, what we did for F9-F11 was the right thing!), but how we ended up
working for F12 (mainly because 4.5 took "forever" to test, so F12 was
almost EOL when we declared it stable) and how we're probably going to work
now (assuming they'll even let us do the one KDE rebase), due to all the
anti-upgrade pressures. :-(
>> Note that Fedora #-2 does not fit into this view for things at all,
>> Fedora #-2 is meant to allow people to skip a Fedora release. But in
>> practice I think this works out badly, because a relatively new Fedora
>> release like Fedora 14 tends to still have some rough edges and get lots
>> of updates/churn (and thus possible regressions, despite our best
>> effords). This is not at a good point in its cycle to upgrade to for
>> people who like it stable (and sticking with 1 release for an entire year
>> to me sounds like liking it stable).
> That's a reasonable point indeed.
Uh, you just explained yourself why it's not! (People don't "like it
stable", they're just too lazy to upgrade.)
>> Where as the one which has already been out for 5-6 months (Fedora 13)
>> has seen most rough edges polished away with updates, and the updates
>> rate will have slowed.
>> So maybe it is time we dropped the support duration for a release from 13
>> to 11 months, and make clear that people should not skip releases.
> That's one I didn't have on my list of ideas to look at; I'll add it :)
It's a very bad idea, it'll lead to even more people running unsupported
More information about the devel