humble suggestion to Fedora developers

Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. eoconnor25 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 31 03:57:04 UTC 2013


On 01/27/2013 10:42 PM, Tim wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 27 January 2013, Ranjan Maitra sent:
>> But the rush to release will still be there, whether it is a 6- or 9-
>> or 12-month cycle? At the point of release, inadequately-tested new
>> features may still be a problem, no?
>>
>> I think a more reliable approach is to have a rolling release model,
>> with periodic snapshot RPMs in a cycle? The periodic snapshots could
>> be benchmark-based, so no specific time schedule, rather than
>> calendar-based?
> I tend to agree.
>
> You could, very easily, be testing a distro in preparation for its
> general release, with all looking well.  But it only takes an updated
> package, or two, to stuff things up.  It might pass the testing, at the
> time, but last minute packages wouldn't have had the amount of testing,
> under more varied circumstances, than packages that have been their for
> longer.
>
> It's not such a huge problem when its something like Firefox, which can
> be replaced by an post-install update.  But when something that's
> required to do the installation is screwed up, that is a big problem.
>
> Likewise, things that are core to the distro become a big problem, if
> the plan is not to replace them during that release.
>
Well what are the odds that ANY of these suggestions will actually be 
considered and / or acted upon?...And I only ask out of curiosity...


EGO II


More information about the users mailing list