On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:14:28 -0600 Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:45:11 +0200 > Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Ok - that's one problem - we sucks in selective updates and > > information for users. > > > > Other could be - change release scheme: > > 1. very similar to current one - rawhide, Fn, Fn-1 > > * rawhide - really raw development platform > > * Fn - live release, similar to current state but more testing > > (proventesters, autoqa) > > * Fn-1 - do not touch, even more strict rules > > Thats what https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy already > attempts to impress on maintainers. In the policy I do not see as clear distinction between F(n) (current stable) and F(n-1) (old stable) as Jaroslav proposes. The closest to it is this sentence: The update rate for any given release should drop off over time, approaching zero near release end-of-life. The wording suggests a continuous rate of change which is weird and hard to get right. An explicit distinction between F(n) and F(n-1) would make sense for at least these reasons: - Many users of F(n) desire current versions of end-user software in updates (of course given that it gets tested sufficiently before being pushed there and that the new version is not a revolutionary change since the previous version). - Some users intentionally install F(n-1) only after F(n) is released, believing it to be more stable and more conservative about updates (important fixes only) than F(n). I guess this is intuitive to users. - F(n)-updates-testing usually has a reasonable amount of users, but much fewer people use F(n-1)-updates-testing. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
