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

Re: Stability and Release Cycles - An Idea

Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Les Mikesell [22/12/2008 09:52] :
Better said as "any reduction in the fragmentation into incompatible flavors is a win for everyone involved with unix-like operating systems". Or, "any effort to separately maintain fragmented distributions is a wasted effort".

The cure for fragmentation is to keep as close to upstream as possible
and encourage other distributions to do the same.

No it isn't. Upstream projects make wild and crazy changes every day that I want no part of until they've stabilized and are suitable to use for years unchanged. The cure for fragmentation is to pick some standard interfaces and stick to them so the code on each side can be optimized separately without breaking the other.

I fail to see how
planning "a smooth transition into the next Centos" has anything to do
with it.

The 'smooth transition' is to avoid breaking the user's machine or forcing a re-install. Maybe that's a foreign concept to fedora, but for me, the point of running any new code is to get it to the point where it will continue to serve you for years. That is, the system should work for you instead of you working to continually change it to something that isn't quite reliable yet.

If you don't introduce any incompatibilities between the RHEL cut and that fedora version's EOL, it should be feasible to do a final 'yum update' that slides the stable code into place along with switching the update repositories. The machine then continues to work with stable code and update support for the next 7 years with no additional burden on fedora resources and the user continues to be happy with his choice to start with fedora. Historically this would have been feasible with minor changes from FC1->Centos3, FC3->Centos4, FC6->Centos5. If planned ahead of time it should be even easier.

If you don't like the Centos 'brand' switch - or don't understand why the code follows a natural path this way, fedora could do it's own RHEL rebranding. Or maybe Red Hat could wake up and realize that a free distro of their own would be a return to what made their name in the first place. In any case there should be no need to duplicate the work of backporting security and bug fixes into otherwise stable code that is free for anyone to use.

  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com

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