jreznik at redhat.com
Thu Sep 23 14:58:39 UTC 2010
On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:45:30 pm Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 22:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > This here sounds strange:
> > | The update rate for any given release should drop off over time,
> > | approaching zero near release end-of-life; since updates are primarily
> > | bugfixes, fewer and fewer should be needed over time.
> > This essentially says that after 12 or 18 months all software in Fedora
> > is bug free and does not need any updates. This is a very strange
> > assumption. E.g. why do we stop supporting the software after it became
> > totally stable? IMHO this claim cannot reasonably be made.
> There is a difference between "stable" and "bug free". Known
> limitations are preferable to moving targets.
> Again: if we kept updating everything to the very latest thing all the
> time, why even bother doing releases. Everyone would just run rawhide.
Not a very latest thing but more like - more useful thing. Because some useful
"user experience" changes could lead to better user experience even changing
slightly the old one. It's not easy to catch this in policy. I like the idea, I
understand why we want it - I want it too, why we need it, it's more relaxed
than the first proposals leading practically to frozen, dead and unmaintained
releases. But still there should be more space for packager's decision and of
course upstream - upstream releases for some reason.
Also this stability proposal has to be coupled with a new release scheme - not
just update policy but also release schedules, what we are going to call
"release", how often (9 months? branch every 6 - we we talking with Jesse a few
minutes ago), how big changes we want in a new release etc... I'm not sure it's
going to work without deeper changes here too.
> - ajax
Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik at redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
More information about the devel