On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 10:32 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Martin Sourada wrote: > > There are also bazillion distributions out there who are on the bleeding > > edge. > > But none that have the current stuff without blatant breakage as updates to > the stable releases, and ship the exciting but disruptive changes in new > releases every 6 months, while still supporting the previous release for 7 > more months from that point. > > There's a balance between bleeding edge and conservativeness. Fedora was > exactly where I, and many other people, who chose Fedora exactly for that > reason (just look at some of the user feedback, e.g. Adam Williamson's poll > on the Fedora Forums, some mails to the kde@xxxxxxxxxx ML etc., I'm not > inventing that "many other people" part), wanted it to be on that balance > (except for some odd packages like Firefox and OO.o where the maintainers > did their own thing, basically already following what the new unwanted > policy will be). Now new policies are tilting the scale way too far towards > conservativeness, to the point where we don't distinguish us anymore from > other distributions; Rawhide, on the other hand, is way too far on the > bleeding edge end to be usable for daily use, and this is exactly the issue > with other "bleeding edge" distributions as well. > > Not all new upstream versions are equal. New versions with major changes, > especially feature regressions, are NOT suitable as updates to a stable work > environment. Version upgrades WITHOUT such breakage ARE suitable, and > actually WANTED as updates. For example, people EXPECT to be able to use the > latest Firefox (and have complained about the Firefox maintainer being too > conservative with his updates), the latest KDE (and have praised KDE SIG for > being so effective at pushing new versions) etc. > Hehe, I agree here with a lot of what you say, as well as disagree with a lot of what you say. I generally don't think we should ban enhancement updates completely, but things like major firefox/kde/gnome/Xorg/kernel are usually too much. In the past, when I was still using firefox, I wasn't especially thrilled with it's stability, especially with new major releases, I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora and I now I'm experiencing the trying to push immature GNOME 3.0 (luckily it was decided in time to push it back another half a year)... I like that Fedora is bleeding edge in rawhide, recieves good deal of testing *before* release and is more or less conservative when it comes to important stuff after release. That way we can provide our users with *stable* but sufficiently modern stuff (in many areas even a few months ahead of other distros). And I think the new policy aligns pretty well with this. Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
