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

Re: What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora



Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
>> Horst H. von Brand wrote:
>>
>>> And presumably you (and everybody else) would wait out the "until known
>>> good" period; and as nobody tried it before, get to keep the pieces of
>>> the resulting breakage...
>> If that is true, then it would mean there's nobody who wants bleeding
>> edge. That in turn would mean that Fedora should be redefined to not be
>> bleeding edge, because nobody wants it that way...
> 
> The problem is that users are asking for contradictory/impossible things:
> they want new versions as soon as possible, i.e. the day upstream releases
> them, but also updates tested for weeks.

> Fedora currently has a good
> compromise (new versions normally get 1-2 weeks of testing, and major
> changes known to break things are only pushed to Rawhide),

In theory. However, does anything/one enforce that? I guess it'd be
difficult to do that programatically in Bodhi. Is this theory emphasized
enough to maintainers? I don't remember reading that it should work this
way, although it's been a while since I read the packaging wiki thoroughly.

I'm sure there are plenty updates that have gone straight to devel, F
$lastest, F $latest-1 at the same time.

> people who need
> something more conservative should be using a more conservative
> distribution.
> 
> And there's also a Prisoner's Dilemma problem here: users moving to the
> conservative update stream => fewer testers for updates-testing and updates
> => more breakage => more users moving to the conservative update stream and
> the vicious circle is complete.
> 
>         Kevin Kofler
> 


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