[PHILOSOPHY] Stability and Release Schedules

[Rickey Moore]

On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 22:40 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
> John Wendel wrote:
> I'm for a stable base to allow for a more free flowing progression of 
> all the many packages involved and a distribution that tracks upstream 
> as closely as possible.
> 
> I'm sure there are pros and cons for both scenarios.

I've advocated something similar, where for a several week period,
certain groups of packages are upgraded with time for the users to
bugtest and report what happened to their installations as a result.
Once the noise level drops, get hit with the next group of packages.
Everyone would be on the same page, the developers could focus on just
those issues and progress along with the users. When the test period is
over the proven stable packages would be in the updated system image.
One could burn CD's that contained a stable system. Those who enjoy
cutting edge would 'upgrade' regularly via a yum script for the next set
of installs packages. It's a thought. Those who just want a running
stable system need not apply to the scheme, and just wait until yum
updates to newer proven-stable packages. It's a thought. Ric