| |||||||||||||
Fedora's "stable release updates vision"Fedora's "stable release updates vision"Posted Mar 12, 2010 15:38 UTC (Fri) by lwkejrlej (guest, #64237)Parent article: Fedora's "stable release updates vision" Stable releases should provide a consistent user experience throughout the lifecycle, and only fix bugs and security issues. This is a welcome change. It's certainly not nice to apply updates only to find out at the next reboot that the network connection is broken. PS. The timing of this change is rather suspicious. Fedora has had the "broken updates" problem since day 1. Surely this has nothing to do with RHEL 6 being around the corner, and hence Red Hat no longer requiring guinea pigs ?
(Log in to post comments)
Fedora's "stable release updates vision" Posted Mar 12, 2010 15:52 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Ah, the great conspiracy except that Red Hat is directing nothing at all in
this whole discussion and does it's own branching and testing for enterprise linux and that includes a lot of things that are important to the customers and not to the community.
If what you claim is a plausible scenario, how do you expect Red Hat to do
Fedora's "stable release updates vision" Posted Mar 13, 2010 8:05 UTC (Sat) by lwkejrlej (guest, #64237) [Link] If what you claim is a plausible scenario, how do you expect Red Hat to do the testing for RHEL 7?RHEL 7 is very far away, and will also need compelling new features and/or performance over RHEL 6 to convince enterprise customers (who don't like changes). Furthermore, given that the time taken between RHEL releases has been increasing, we shouldn't expect RHEL 7 for at least 5 years. (If my maths is right, RHEL 3 -> 4 took about 15 months, 4 -> 5 took roughly 25 months, 5 -> 6 will take about 40 months if released mid-2010. If the rate of slowdown is steady, RHEL 7 will take approximately 64 months -- sometime late 2015) Compared to the amount of ground covered already, the number of important things left to do in the Linux ecosystem isn't that much: the major items are btrfs, finishing the video drivers (KMS based) and real-time operation of the kernel. Given that Red Hat's focus is enterprise (i.e. no interest/no money to be made in the desktop), btrfs can be backported into a 6.x release, which means that there isn't really much in terms of new features for RHEL 7. Given this state of affairs, it's no wonder Red Hat isn't so worried about the pace of Fedora development anymore, and can "afford" to significantly decrease the reliance on Fedora being a proving ground.
Fedora's "stable release updates vision" Posted Mar 14, 2010 7:50 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Your explanation has one major gap that you didn't really answer, can you
show that Red Hat is driving this change? I doubt it. Can you really show that Fedora as upstream for Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires Fedora to push major changes as updates as opposed to the development branch? I doubt that as well. Here is an alternative explanation:
RHEL's lifecycle is Red Hat product management decision and the combination
Meanwhile, the Fedora community has itself decided to change the update
Fedora's "stable release updates vision" Posted Mar 12, 2010 15:52 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
It is better not to explain by conspiracy theory anything which can equally be explained as a cock-up.
Fedora's "stable release updates vision" Posted Mar 12, 2010 15:53 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Maybe, but more likely the timing has to do with the recent wars on both the Fedora and kernel lists, in which everyone was bashing Fedora in the strongest terms for what they've been doing lately.
|
|||||||||||||