Rolling release Fedora - fantastic idea

[Brendan Jones]

On 01/28/2012 01:10 AM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
> I read the list thread concerning a Fedora rolling release distribution,
> and I found it interesting enough to compel me to join the list and
> weigh in.
>
> First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm certain
> that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15, 16, and
> Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu which still has a lot of 14 left at it's
> core with much success.
>
> Some potential reasons why it would be a good idea.. A lot of us don't
> like to risk a major upgrade every 6 months to a year, or reinstall. We
> can always save a dump of rpms, and not format /home but still, that's a
> lot of unnecessary work. If you aren't in a position to do a full backup
> (right or wrong) it becomes even more of a challenge.
>
> It's also very convenient to upgrade to Firefox 9 for example without
> having to go to Remi, or spend hours upgrading everything. If it rolls,
> everything gets upgraded over time. Huge convenience factor here.
>
> I just pulled LibreOffice 3.4.4 from Fedora 16 down to Fuduntu. I'm also
> shipping Firefox 9.
>
> If you were interested in going forward with a rolling release model,
> your community is large enough that it doesn't have to be your core
> product. It could though be the foundation for your core product.
>
> I'd recommend continuing your release cycle, shifting to rolling Fedora,
> and point release from that.
>
> Rawhide IMHO is "rolling", but it's also very unstable, as you all well
> know.
>
I think what a lot of end-users don't understand is that Fedora sits 
_very_ close to upstream and in the most part, package updates are 
determined by the maintainer, not Fedora. What that means is a lot of 
the show-stopping bugs meet their end in rawhide before they even make 
it to the other rolling release distros. If the need is for the latest 
and greatest of package _x_ then that is a packaging issue and that 
should be directed to the maintainer of said package - Fedora does not 
decide when/if a package should be upgraded - the packager does. For 
major changes, the Fedora KDE model seems to work pretty well I think.

I don't really see the need for a rolling release... if end users want 
that warm-happy feeling that they're using the latest and greatest then 
thay should contact the maintainer or provide a patch.



> The idea thrown out there that discussed using a waterfall repository
> method is solid, we have been doing it for over year now.
>
> Development, Rawhide - done.
>
> Testing - Reasonably stable, packages promoted from development when
> they are ready.
>
> Stable - After you have tested the packages with a reasonably wide
> audience, promote them to stable.
>
> Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18, 19.
> This model been working for us for a short while now.
>
> You guys are already set up for success, IMHO much more so than some of
> the other distributions out there. That's why I chose to base off of it.
> Are we doing some things wrong? Definitely, but we are also doing some
> things well enough to know that Fedora would be wildly successful with a
> rolling release.
>
> As for the comments about users upset that they suddenly get GNOME 3 via
> a rolling upgrade, that's a communications issue and also what spins and
> remixes are for.
>
> That is my $.02. I really hope to see Fedora go this route, but if
> Fedora decides to stick to the current release model (which is already
> excellent) those that want an RPM based rolling release are welcome to
> come help out at Fuduntu. :D