2008/11/18 James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 07:41 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> 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). > > Indeed, and someone else wants the latest transmission and someone else > the latest pidgin and someone else... > So you either need 100x distributions, or the latest stuff of > everything. > >> > 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. >> """ > > Ok, the above _only_ works if you can convince all the packagers that > they should backport fixes ... or you end up with things broken in > "Level 2+" until a newer "fixed"¹ package manages to come up through the > levels. > > This "rolling relases" is roughly what we do with yum releases now, but > manually and so doesn't have the backport requirements problems. So if > we know that version 123 is pretty good but has a couple of annoying > edge case bugs ... we don't release into Fedora 8. Although even then > sometimes things get through. > If someone thinks there is something magic that can be done to make > releases bug free, they should speak to someone involved in something > that was released into Fedora 9 and will be in RHEL-5.3. I know there > are a couple of packages that did that. It wasn't magic, but it sure > wasn't anything you can easily get people to do for Fedora (IMNSHO). > > > ¹ May contain other bugs. > > -- > James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Fedora > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > maybe these 2 threads should be merged: 1. F11 Proposal: Stabilization 2. Proposal - "Slow updates" repo -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
