[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available

On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 19:04 -0400, seth vidal wrote:

> [...]
> This is only my opinion  - but the board is still discussing this on the
> board list. I'm pretty sure it's on the agenda for the next conference
> call. I'll make sure we come to an answer by then - however it is really
> an issue for the fedora core steering committee/cabal and it sounds like
> to me they've already decided for this release as is evidenced in the
> rawhide trees.
> Does this make sense to you?


When Fedora was initially conceived, and there wasn't quiet the amount
of forkage between Red Hat Linux, Enterprise Linux, Fedora, and upstream
(relative to *now*), it was easy to approximate Fedora Core package
versions as 'the latest versions that are reasonably *working* (not
stable, as in unchanging, but working).  I toured the world explaining
this distinction as "Fedora is the best of what works today.  Enterprise
Linux is the best of what will work for the next seven years," and it
was very well received.

Time has passed.  Fedora and Enterprise Linux have each built their own
track records.  Fedora has proved to be an extremely valuable mechanism
for evaluating and rapidly maturing upstream technologies into stuff we
can use (or know not to use) for Enterprise Linux.  Look at how fastly
and loosely (and successfully) we played with GNOME versions to get the
latest and greatest into FC(n).  I am convinced that without Fedora, the
integration of SE Linux into Enterprise Linux, thereby making it the
most mainstream high-grade security platform to date, would have been
impossible.  The Fedora project is a winner and I am very proud what
what we all have done together.

But now the approximation is not so easy.  It seems that a third
criterion has crept into the mix, one which now places Fedora in a much
more distinctive place between upstream and stable.  A place that will
become even more distinctive with time.  And while I am glad to know
that the board/cabal is earnestly holding discussions that weigh on this
criterion with respect to upstream (or not) rpm, I'm getting the sense
of deja vu that we will once again exclude the community--in this case
upstream developers--in a way that's going to give us another painful
rift to heal.  And if you tell me "we're already thinking about that",
I'll say "great.  I hope to see that thinking published soon."  And if I
don't see it soon, I'll worry even more.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]