Rolling release model philosophy (was Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID)))

[Michael Scherer]

Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 09:29 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +0000, mike cloaked wrote:
> 
> > Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but
> > one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only two repos to
> > maintain - whilst in Fedora it is 5 repos! One might wonder whether
> > there is less effort needed to keep up to date by the developers in
> > Arch or Fedora - I don't have the answer to that question but the devs
> > have more knowledge about effort needed to maintain all of this to
> > make a proper comparison?
> 
> Thanks, Mike, that's a great illustration of the point I was trying to
> make: the Arch model sounds much like what I was trying to suggest for
> Fedora, a simple two-track 'devel' and 'stable' model with QA between
> the tracks. And as you point out, on the face of it it appears to
> involve much less drudgery for maintainers. I have never run Arch, but I
> do get the general impression it provides a sufficiently reliable
> experience for the kinds of users Fedora and Arch have.

Unfortunately, we do not have enough people doing QA for the model to
work. Each time I run fedora-easy-karma on branched, I have the feeling
to see always the same names ( ie, you and kevin ). I would be
interested to see some stats about this, because the difference between
a unused software and one who have no bug is thin.

And I am doubting that changing the release model will suddenly make
people do QA.

-- 
Michael Scherer