jreznik at redhat.com
Wed Sep 29 10:45:17 UTC 2010
On Wednesday, September 29, 2010 09:19:08 am Michal Schmidt wrote:
> 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 redhat.com> 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 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy 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.
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