[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: An Open Letter to Red Hat: Guidelines for Fedora Core
On Thursday 07 April 2005 10:17 am, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 08:22 -0500, Danny Sauer wrote:
> > Updates are periodically released for each Fedora snapshot, right?
> First off, Fedora is not a "snapshot."
Fedora core is a time-based release assigned an arbitrary version number
after a short "feature freeze" on the packages in Fedora-current every 3-4
months. That sounds an awful lot like a snapshot, though I suppose calling
it a release or core is fine too, if the connotation of "snapshot" is
> Secondly, Red Hat treats the last 2 Fedora Core releases as "Current"
> until the next Test 2 comes out. As long as they are current, they
> support them, including testing patches before they are released.
If we're picking nits here: http://fedora.redhat.com/about/
"What Support is Available?
No formal Web or phone support for The Fedora Project will be available from
> > Wouldn't it be just as effective to look at the release date of the
> > given snapshot, and then look at the dates and changelogs to see how
> > many fixes have been released, how quickly, and if they were fixing
> > big problems or just adding features? From that information a user
> > could determine for himself how he felt about the stability of a
> > fully-updated Fedora vX.
> This has nothing to do with updates or guaranteed stability -- I'm
> talking about using a designation on ABI compatibility. Red Hat started
> canning updates and guarantees on even Red Hat Linux long ago (before
> Fedora Core), as they started to drop Red Hat Linux (now Fedora Core) as
> a product.
One more terminology problem, I guess. I consider stability to mean not
only that the software won't crash, but that the API/ABI's won't be
changing around, causing software to fail.
I do, however, agree with your sentiment - that there's no good way to tell
if the 2-3 or 3-4 transition will be huge, or just a set of minor updates.
There would have to be some kind of description of what constitutes a
"major" change, though, and that's a discussion that's been going on for a
long time without any succesful resolution. Does a new version of libDB
constitute a major revision? What about an update to arts? How about
something even more minor? I don't think that minor-number based
versioning will solve any problems, honestly.
If potentially large changes between releases (which I still want to call
snapshots :)) is a problem in a given application, then Fedora probably
isn't the appropriate distribution for that application. There are lots of
other free, community-supported distros out there that maintain smaller
increments between versions. SuSE isn't one of them, BTW - large changes
that break stuff occasionally happen in minor-number revisions there, too.
--Danny, who moved lots of stuff to Gentoo precisely because of this whole
arbitrary version numbering bunch of crap
To unsubscribe, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.