Michal Schmidt mschmidt at
Wed Sep 29 07:19:08 UTC 2010

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:14:28 -0600 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:45:11 +0200
> Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at> wrote:
> > 
> > Ok - that's one problem - we sucks in selective updates and
> > information for users.
> >
> > Other could be - change release scheme:
> > 1. very similar to current one - rawhide, Fn, Fn-1
> > * rawhide - really raw development platform
> > * Fn - live release, similar to current state but more testing
> > (proventesters, autoqa)
> > * Fn-1 - do not touch, even more strict rules
> Thats what already
> attempts to impress on maintainers. 

In the policy I do not see as clear distinction between F(n) (current
stable) and F(n-1) (old stable) as Jaroslav proposes. The closest to it
is this sentence:
  The update rate for any given release should drop off over time,
  approaching zero near release end-of-life.
The wording suggests a continuous rate of change which is weird and
hard to get right.

An explicit distinction between F(n) and F(n-1) would make sense for at
least these reasons:
 - Many users of F(n) desire current versions of end-user software
   in updates (of course given that it gets tested sufficiently before
   being pushed there and that the new version is not a revolutionary
   change since the previous version).
 - Some users intentionally install F(n-1) only after F(n) is released,
   believing it to be more stable and more conservative about updates
   (important fixes only) than F(n). I guess this is intuitive to users.
 - F(n)-updates-testing usually has a reasonable amount of users, but
   much fewer people use F(n-1)-updates-testing.


More information about the devel mailing list