Stability and Release Cycles - An Idea

[Les Mikesell]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> backported updates.  Another which isn't really a long-term approach but
>> could produce usably-stable versions that overlapped a bit would be to
>> stop introducing new features in updates in one release by or before the
>> beta of the next release and focus only on stability from that point to
>> end of life.  Even if EOL is not extended you'd have a version that you
>> could run until the next version reached that point - and people who
>> want new features can jump to the next release instead.
> 
> No, we can't jump to the next release if it's only in beta. Just because we
> want new features doesn't mean we want a beta distro! 

As long as you are adding new features, it is always the equivalent of 
beta - pretty much by definition.

> The earliest
> a "stabilization" like that would be acceptable would be 1 month (time to
> upgrade) after the next release is out.

OK, so now you are down to a 5 month stable life.  Still better than 
none like it has now.

> And I don't see how the current system is not "usably-stable". Fedora just
> works.

Except when it doesn't.  Would you bet your life on it working correctly 
  after every update?  You'd have lost several times on my machines, 
including an update very near the end of FC6's life - a point where 
there was no reason at all to be making changes likely to break things. 
And I'm not using it again for anything that matters until I have some 
reason to think it won't be repeated.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com