On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> > unlike other major distros, other updates have less helpful >> > descriptions: >> > >> > * "Update to latest upstream version" >> > * "No update information available" >> > * "Here is where you give an explanation of your update. Here is >> > where >> > you give an explanation of your update." >> > >> > Perhaps the update policy should have a guideline on the minimum >> > amount >> >> Or maybe the question should be: "should we be pushing this many >> updates for stable releases?" I was running Fedora 17 on a laptop >> till >> a couple weeks back and I kept getting nagged by PackageKit every >> other evening. Atleast twice a week. > > That's more problem of how we treat our stable releases. > > Take Fn-1 - it's almost dead, nearly nobody cares about it anymore > (as bugfixes/backporting are costly), and I'd say with our ability > to push security updates... It's non sense to have it as supported > release. > Take Fn - some teams are trying to mimic Rawhide-like style, some > teams are not touching it even with stick and would ban any update, > so currently it's mix of Fn-1 and the idea how should Rawhide look > like. > Take Rawhide - we are now trying to solve how to make it usable for > developers, not talking about users... The idea during the stable > craziness was to make it usable and replacement of Fn for people > who wants live release, it did not happen (yet). > > => no flexibility, no way how to make different users happy, more > way how to make unhappy everyone, as it's really not clear what > should look like). Yes, you can enforce no updates policy, but > take a look above... > > My idea was (and still is) - use these three levels! Fn-1 supported, > stable release, updates in batch (where and when it makes sense) + > make sure security updates lands on time. Fn as a living release, > slowing down before it becomes Fn-1. So we can release our hands > trying make Rawhide replacement for alive release and make sure > it's usable for development. It also makes more seamless transition > between releases (what Spot wants to solve with different release > numbering - as we really fail there - we care about not touching > stable release and then we push on users massive changes with a > new release). And yes, otherwise it does not make sense to > have two stable (and mostly stalled and dead releases as written > in policy). Let's use this opportunity (and no, it's not LTS proposal, > maybe it sounds a little bit Debianish ;-). > > Jaroslav > >> >> >> Cheers, >> Debarshi >> >> >> -- >> If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines >> and cars >> and electricity would have done it too. -- Arjun Shankar >> >> -- >> devel mailing list >> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel How about we just drop support for 2 fedora releases to 1 and go on an 8 month cycle? It's not that bad. Dan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
