FC4 state of affairs and FC5

[Tyler Larson]

Gilboa Davara wrote:
> My question is simple:
> Is it the view of the FC foundation, that the FC4 bug-fixing is taking
> second seat to the FC5 development?
> Is it acceptable, again, in the FC foundation's eyes, that up until the
> release of the FC5, people will not be able to sync with their Palm or
> have dead installations on their hands (lvm problem)
> I may be wrong here, isn't the lvm problem big enough to require ISO
> remaster?
> Isn't the Palm problem serious enough to warrant a switch to an older
> pilotd (and gnome-pilot)?
> Am I the only to feel that these problems are critical?

I took a good look at the Fedora Objectives, and interestingly enough, the
word "stable" was conspicuously missing. The word "robust" is generally used
in its stead, suggesting that the release versions are expected to at least
compile, link, and possibly even run without seg faulting. The objectives
taken as a whole, and considering aspects such as the "time-based" release
model (as opposed to quality-based or feature-based), give the overall
impression that Fedora is designed to be an occasionally-solidifying rolling
rawhide distribution.

Not that that's a bad thing, mind you. Development is constantly moving
forward, but every now and then, we get a brief feature-freeze, drop a
release, and move on developing. Some stuff might be broken in a given
release, but don't worry: you'll have another release in a few short months,
and in the mean time, you can use FC n-1.

While this sounds a little extreme, it's a great opportunity for some people.
 I can't afford to run rawhide on my laptop--it's just too time consuming (and
risky). But in exchange for the opportunity to run bleeding-edge software, I
don't mind occasionally re-writing an RC script or building a package from
older source.

Fedora is a developer-centric environment despite the fact that it produces
user-centric software. It's a different paradigm that takes some getting used
to and shouldn't be expected to fit most people's needs. Fixing bugs in an old
release does, in fact, have to sometimes take a back seat to working on the
new one--otherwise too much time would be spent maintaining old releases.
Sure, maintaining releases is important, but Fedora is an experiment in
shifting the focus forward. You're not going to see a 4.1 or 4.2; not because
they wouldn't be useful, but because the Fedora paradigm dictates that the
resources be focused elsewhere. It's something of an experimental model, and
we'll have to see how well it works. I think FC4 was the first major casualty.