Kevin Kofler wrote:
I still believe that with some minor changes you could please everyone,
including people who want a different pace on different machines. You
just need a fast-track, slow-track scheme for installing updates
More update tracks = more maintainership work, more possible combinations of
packages (thus less testing), so not very likely to happen and may well be
counterproductive (untested combinations of updates can cause problems).
I don't think you are following what I'm trying to say. Slow-track and
fast-track are exactly the same with a delay factor. If you don't make
any mistakes with packages entering fast-track, there are no changes and
no extra work regarding what shows up in slow-track. If you do make a
mistake, slow-track gives you a chance to fix it before you destroy all
your user's critical work and fedora's reputation along with it. The
fast-track _is_ the large-scale testing (like you have now, but it would
be worth something instead of just representing some ephemeral mix of
changing package never to be seen again...).
and some cutoff (say 3 months in) for feature-change updates to a release.
That would definitely not "please everyone". I don't want such a cutoff, and
if it really has to be introduced at some point, I'd be really unhappy with
anything less than 7-9 months in (giving me a 1-3 month old next release to
upgrade to to get my new features). And I'm sure there are more people like
me (just read e.g. Arthur Pemberton's comments, and it can't just be us 2
either).
I picked that off the top of my head. If you want to push it out to 5
months or even 6 so the wild and crazy changes can continue without
pause as the next release starts, fine. That would still leave 6 months
where a release is actually usable for work instead of never.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
