On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/24/2012 08:21 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote: > >> >> Recommended Cycles for major upgrades for each group: >> 1) User - As soon as possible. >> 2) System - 6 months. >> 3) Core - 12-18 months. > > Problem is that, it is often the case that 1) requires updates in 2) and > sometimes even 3) > > Rahul > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Hence why I wish there was some commitment to ABI stability :-(. However, I don't think the situation is as dire as you suggest. for the following reasons: 1) I don't think that many changes in the user section would rely heavily on new libraries. (Firefox 9 and Libreoffice both run fine on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS which is almost 2 years old). 2) If a User package does require system changes the the upgrade waits to the next system release (This is the current Fedora model). 3) If a package needed changes to all three (I can't think of an example KVM maybe). Then a release could be cut with everything at the latest/required versions. Interested users could upgrade, the remainder would be brought current at the next "core" release. The big idea behind what I propose is that package upgrades need to be differentiated based on the potential for disruption. An upgrade to libreoffice is less disruptive than a kernel upgrade and an upgrade to Gnome is more disruptive than a libreoffice upgrade. -- Mark Bidewell http://www.linkedin.com/in/markbidewell -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
