On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:26:43 -0700 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. But I think that might be a non representative case. Before branched happens currently you get all the stuff like: Mass rebuilds, major upgrades that take a bunch of work to get all done, etc. So, you might not be considering them in your view above... but if we were rolling then you would have to deal with new boost, or png changing, or rpm format changing, etc, and there is seldom a way to cut these up into smaller bits. So, in a rolling release when say png changes, we would have to push all that change out to users in a big chud. They would have to do them somewhat quickly if they wanted any updates that would be depending on it/behind it. > 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'. I'm not convinced. ;) In any case, I think we do need to look at release cycle changes or at the very least Feature process revamp. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
