On 11/04/2012 05:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Lukasik <isimluk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Currently, each Fedora release is kept alive for 13(+/-) months. There >> were dozens of threads about shortening or prolonging period -- but I am >> not sure if something like the following has been ever discussed: > >> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==1 -- is alive for 7 months. >> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==2 -- is alive for 7 months. >> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==0 -- is alive for 19 months. > >> Additionally, maintainers might be encouraged to push their system wide >> changes into N%3==1. As well as they might be encouraged to make the >> Fedora N%3==0 their best bread. > > Wouldn't that just encourage 99% of average users to ignore the > short-lived releases? It would sure be a damn tempting approach for me. > (Personally, all I want out of Fedora is a stable platform to get my > work done on, and the less often I have to reinstall, the better.) > If You are suggesting that the majority of our users would prefer stability over features......well, in that case we may have something to think about. > I think what you'd have using the short-lived releases is just the same > kind of brave souls who are willing to run rawhide or pre-release > branched systems. And there aren't that many of them, so you'd get > little QA, which would help to ensure those releases remain buggy, thus > creating a nasty feedback loop that further helps to drive away people > whose main interest is not in helping to debug the system. Eventually > the short-lived releases would just be rawhide-with-a-different-name. > > regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
