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)))

[Panu Matilainen]

On 11/04/2012 12:17 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
> 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.
>

Adam's point is that reducing the number of branches requiring QA should 
permit more thorough QA with the scarce resources available, resources 
which currently are spread too wide and too thin with the current model.

	- Panu -