On 03.11.2012 18:26, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 10:52 +0100, drago01 wrote: 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, I think that the current "rolling release" discussion as many other "high interest" general ones in the recent months are pointless without some form of explicit definition and statistics of the current (and desired) distinct Fedora user profiles.
You mostly talk about the uncle Bob's profile (witch is the 2nd most present profile across the forums); Our vocal member Reinald belongs to one of the psychological subtypes of the "mad sysadmin" profile; Tom, which said yesterday that he would not be interested in rolling Fedora, into third profile, etc.
BTW, personally I think, the uncle Bob profile currently most suffers the lack of the real package manager interface (at least under Gnome, I do not have a clue for KDE) - I see this issue as one with even high priority for uncle Bob than the lack of smooth upgrade scenario.
So, my concrete proposal is to postpone all general discussions for a little, up to the moment when we describe as much as possible in detail let's say 16 Fedora user profiles and sub-profiles (at least on the wiki) and estimate somehow their population (may be along with the project leaders concept about the profiles witch Fedora actually is intended to seek for).
Without any data at hand to back the prioritization and approach variant efficiency/suitability claims, I think it looks impossible to be achieved any level of consensus (especially in that list, as you know far better than me).
Kind Regards, Alek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
