On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 10:52 +0100, drago01 wrote: > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My position is that the people who use Fedora and the kind of people we > > really _want_ to use Fedora can cope with it. > > Maybe the majority can maybe they can't. But as evident by this thread > even fedora *developers* don't want to deal with such stuff. I think some of them were rather misunderstanding my point and my suggestion, which was my fault for phrasing my initial mail in an overly negative way (that I didn't realize until I read it back). > But rather get work done. Do you really think that users are that much > different? I don't think rolling release and getting work done are incompatible. As I mentioned, I run Branched permanently on my desktop - so it rolls from 'pre-Alpha' state through to 'stable' state briefly and then back to 'pre-Alpha' again, on a constant loop - and I do almost all my work on that. We could build a light rolling-release distro that was substantially more reliable than that. Again, my fundamental point is that we could achieve a sufficient level of reliability for Fedora's purposes - the same level of reliability we currently achieve, which I think the kinds of people we're talking about are happy with - on a lighter release model than 'do a "stable release" every six months come hell or high water' or 'three-track rolling, Debian style, with a very slow-moving "stable" track'. > > Remember, I'm not > > proposing it be as bad as Rawhide; we have the whole Bodhi karma process > > to work with. I think it's plausible to design a process where people > > only rarely have trouble with updates, even ones that are theoretically > > pretty messy; about the same frequency they'd have had trouble with > > upgrading our stable releases. > > That basically means you don't release anything and just release a > huge update every six months. Don't really see what this gains us > other then installation becoming an untested path. > The installation process and images have to be up2date though to be > able to deal with current hardware. Eh? That's not what I said at all. What I said was that I think in a well-managed rolling release model, users would actually run into trouble only about as often as they already do anyway. I don't mean they'd only get updates every six months, I mean they'd only get updates which _broke stuff_ on average every six months. Or less. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
