On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:35:02 +0100, Kevin wrote: > >> > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:32:12 -0600, Arthur wrote: >> > >> >> 6 months is a pretty long time to wait for a major release. I >> >> understand the rationale, but if this is going to be the new Fedora, >> >> best announce this and let everyone know so that they can reevaluate >> >> if Fedora is for them. As things are, I feel that we are being _too_ >> >> conservative. Any further move to more conservatism seriously affects >> >> Fedora's usefulness to me. >> > >> > Why? >> >> Because, like me, he chose Fedora *because* of the stream of updates, we >> *want* those updates, including version upgrades. > > Judging on the community uproar everytime a grave bug in updates is > discovered, I don't see that Fedora's users want so many poorly tested > updates and upgrades that throw away the work of the previous development > (Rawhide) period. I hear and read that the six months release cycle > is fast-moving enough for them and that every new release suffers from > enough bugs which requires updates to bring it into usable shape. > > What I see is that although we have updates-testing repos and a karma > system in bodhi, nothing is done to build up a Fedora QA team that > controls the flow of updates into the stable repo. Why do we force our > precious users to become guinea pigs instead of only giving them the > chance to become early adaptors [by enabling updates-testing]? It's > especially the version upgrades that break the most things. Broken > dependencies are harmless compared with changes in a user-interface and > changes and in a feature-set. > > "Idiot filters in bodhi"? - Not a bad idea to add a check-box where > package maintainers must acknowledge the guidelines: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MaintainerResponsibility#Maintain_stability_for_users > >> We would be using Ubuntu >> or CentOS or any of the other bazillion conservative distros otherwise. >> A distro with a 6-month release cycle, but conservative updates, already >> exists, it's called Ubuntu, why do we need to copy it? If you want Ubuntu, >> go use Ubuntu. > > CentOS is not only "conservative", as a copy of RHEL and completely > different release cycle it doesn't offer any release that is close to > Fedora 8/9/10. Colin has mentioned (essential) differences between Ubuntu > and Fedora. There are more. Ubuntu won't become equal to Fedora if it > increased its updates frequency. We will have to agree to disagree on this as I found none of the reasons he gave substantive. I'll wait to see what looks like may be a new pace of releases play out. I will say that I find the tone of the proposed changes to be overly conservative and overall unfortunate. But if that's what the majority wishes, so be it. -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
