In the wild, I often see Fedora described as a "semi-rolling" release.
As a policy matter, the distribution promises to be mostly stable, but I
find it increasingly hard to honestly present it as such.
As a couple of quick examples, I'd point out that in Fedora 35, Blender
updated from 2.93 (an LTS version) to version 3. In Fedora 36, Emacs
updated from version 27 to 28. I've read in the KDE Matrix channel that
KDE will be updated in Fedora 36 to 5.26, even though it has already
been updated from 5.24 -> 5.25 (my reading of the KDE update policy is
that Fedora used to update all releases with every KDE release, but
decided to stop). Firefox and Thunderbird get updates in most releases,
even when they contain API-breaking changes (those really should have
an explicit exception, IMHO.) I could offer more, but my point is
simply that examples of updates in prominent packages isn't hard to find.
That's not necessarily to object to those changes (though I did have to
do some minor fixes after the emacs update, and I grumbled quietly), and
I don't want to disrupt users getting new features if that's what
everyone actually wants. But, it does bother me that the documentation
doesn't seem to reflect reality. I think that the documentation should
offer users a realistic expectation of what they'll get from Fedora.
Does anyone else feel like the documentation should be updated, or am I
making too much of this?
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
