Proposal: Rolling Release

[Pavel Shevchuk]

I was ArchLinux user for 2.5 years before switched to Fedora. I DO NOT
WANT rolling release please. Leave rolling to gentoo, arch and other
plumber's distros, keep making great desktop system i can put on work
box and just use it.

Recently nagios got updated from 2.x to 3.x branch in RPMForge EL
repository and yum-cron pulled it in automagically. Result is broken
monitoring tool i don't have time/will to repair. I don't want to my
development tools to break suddenly few days before project deadline
at work while applying bugfix packages to amarok.

There's a reason why Fedora supports development, current and previous
branches. Fedora is designed to WORK while being bleeding edge

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Eric Springer <erikina at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fedora has always lead the progress of FOSS by closely following
> upstream and making non-trivial contributions. I see this is a great
> strength, and like many other people it's my primary reason for using
> it. But it's not without trade-offs, such as giving Fedora a
> perception of being 'beta' software and balancing new software without
> burning the large user base is not easy either.
>
> This hit home today, after being impressed with the work you guys have
> done with plymouth, I did a quick Google search[1] to find out a
> little more. The first result is a "Ubuntu brainstorm" page[2] about
> implementing it in their own distribution and the second comment is "I
> support the idea but I do think that it should only be considered
> after Fedora has done all the dirty work of getting it to work". This
> is no way intended as a criticism of a Ubuntu, but it's a realization
> that distributions like Ubuntu are able to offer a better user
> experience by using stable software on a longer support cycle.
>
> So what I propose is that Fedora goes to a rolling release cycle.
> Implemented properly I believe we can better achieve Fedoras
> objectives[3] of rapidly progressing Free Open Source Software, while
> providing a more user centric focus (and bringing something new to the
> easy-to-use-table). While I would prefer to not get bogged down in the
> technical details at this stage, we would need to provide software in
> varying levels of stability.
>
> Perhaps something like:
> hemorrhaging -> rawhide -> stable -> rocksolid
>
> Users should be able to very easily and freely move through the
> levels, especially on a per-package basis (with PackageKit). It should
> also be easy for users to "freeze" their system/package to only
> receive security (and optionally bug) patches, as many aren't
> interested in the constant upgrade cycle.
>
> New features/software/functionality would be easily tested by the
> masses without needing to upgrade the entire distribution. It would
> give the open source community a massive user-base they could call
> upon to test easily.
>
> The average user would sit at the 'stable' level while perhaps
> testing/using a few of their favorite software from rawhide. Servers
> would typically sit at the rocksolid level, and use stable packages on
> a needs-only basis.
>
>
>
> Thoughts? Flames? Ideas?
>
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.google.com/search?q=Fedora+Plymouth
> [2] http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/11165/
> [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>



-- 
http://scwlab.com