Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 09:29 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit : > On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +0000, mike cloaked wrote: > > > Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but > > one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only two repos to > > maintain - whilst in Fedora it is 5 repos! One might wonder whether > > there is less effort needed to keep up to date by the developers in > > Arch or Fedora - I don't have the answer to that question but the devs > > have more knowledge about effort needed to maintain all of this to > > make a proper comparison? > > Thanks, Mike, that's a great illustration of the point I was trying to > make: the Arch model sounds much like what I was trying to suggest for > Fedora, a simple two-track 'devel' and 'stable' model with QA between > the tracks. And as you point out, on the face of it it appears to > involve much less drudgery for maintainers. I have never run Arch, but I > do get the general impression it provides a sufficiently reliable > experience for the kinds of users Fedora and Arch have. Unfortunately, we do not have enough people doing QA for the model to work. Each time I run fedora-easy-karma on branched, I have the feeling to see always the same names ( ie, you and kevin ). I would be interested to see some stats about this, because the difference between a unused software and one who have no bug is thin. And I am doubting that changing the release model will suddenly make people do QA. -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
