On 03/03/2010 02:36 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> It is a reason but it's not the only reason. Semi-rolling releases allow
>> a subset of the entire packager community to work on an update as a set
>> and then push them when they're known to work together. Currently rawhide
>> is not so coherent.
>>
>> We could change rawhide from a pure rolling to a semi-rolling model but
>> then would we need to have a rawerhide?
>
> Our stable releases are already "semi-rolling" (at least in some sense), why
> can't we just keep things the way they are?
We have no clear policy on whether updates in F(n), F(n-1), or any other
stream should be rolling updates or limited updates. As a result, there
is a large amount of inconsistency in the distribution itself. We have
some users complaining that rolling updates are bad, other claiming it's
a selling point. The truth of the matter is that since we aren't
consistent, it is both and neither all at the same time.
So, at a very minimum, we need to settle on a policy, enact it, enforce
it, and make the distribution either semi rolling or stable. A random
mix and match of the two is the worst possible way to leave things now
that the issue has been broached. Users that want rolling updates can't
actually expect it across the board, and likewise users that want a
stable system can't expect it across the board, so we are trying to
satisfy two groups and actually satisfying none.
That's why things can't just stay the way they are.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
