On 17.11.2008 23:16, Jon Masters wrote:
>
Various other communities (and distributions) have made a
point out of "stable" releases where the "big ticket" feature is
stabilization, so I think it would be a win to consider that.
I disagree: It seems to me a lot of the current Fedora users like the
"latest bells and whistles" style (like you called it in the mail that
started this discussion) I for one really like the steady stream of
kernel-updates, as that greatly improves hardware support over time! On
OpenSuse or Ubuntu you are often forced to run the development branches
when you need newer driver (just like it was in the early Fedora days
and in the RHL days).
Those users otoh that don't like the steady updates stream are likely
using other distributions already, as Fedora is doing it for quite a
while already.
So I fear that a lot of our current users will be unhappy if Fedora gets
closer to a updates style like those from opensuse or ubuntu. And at the
same time we likely don't attract that many new people, as most of the
opensuse and ubuntu users are likely glad with the distribution they use
right now. Further: we have a fame for shipping "the latest bells and
whistles". I suppose getting rid of that would take years...
Quoting from the mail that started this discussion:
I would personally much
prefer that stuff that used to work didn't break randomly, and that
stable Fedora updates wouldn't result in me wondering whether suspend,
graphics, SELinux, or some other feature that was working was going to
break today. This isn't actually a rant, more pointing out a necessity.
Agreed, but I tend to say we should work towards a solution where we can
ship the "latest bells and whistles" and nevertheless provide stability.
I for one think we need something like that:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-August/msg00025.html
The relevant part:
"""
I more and more think that we should consider to switch to a more
rolling release scheme with different usage levels. Roughly something
like the following maybe:
Level 1 -- rawhide, similar to how it is today (a bit more stable and
less breakage would be nice, but that's in the works already)
Level 2pre -- things that got tested in rawhide, that are still young,
but known to work well in rawhide; similar to what updates-testing for
F9 is today;
Level 2 -- things that worked fine for some time in 2pre; similar to
what F9 is today
Level 3pre -- things that worked fine for some time in 2
Level 3 -- things that worked fine for some time in 2pre
Level 3pre and 3 are like F8-updates-testing and F8, but with the
difference that everything has to be tested and shipped in level 2 (aka
F9) first.
"""
CU
knurd
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
