This isn't new
Posted Jul 16, 2012 17:17 UTC (Mon) by dwmw2
Parent article: Left by Rawhide
I'm not sure I'd agree with the assertion that the 'No Frozen Rawhide' policy has "changed the nature of the Rawhide distribution in fundamental ways.".
What goes into Rawhide does go into the next Fedora release. It's not like linux-next where stuff is supposed to be present only if it's going to be sent to Linus in the next merge window; with rawhide it actually is true. What's pushed to Rawhide now will be in Fedora 18, unless it's subsequently updated again.
The only thing that changed is that in the past, Rawhide was frozen while a Fedora release was being stabilised. During that period, there was nowhere that people could commit the shiny new exciting stuff. This lead to a huge amount of changes hitting Rawhide when the floodgates were opened just after a release.
One of the things that the 'No Frozen Rawhide' policy was supposed to do was remove that damming effect, and improve stability in the "immediate post-release period" that you mention.
Also, users have always been told that "if it breaks in Rawhide you get to keep both pieces"; that isn't new either. And it's always been variable — some developers really don't care about their packages in Rawhide until a new release is imminent, while others do try to keep it working.
I believe that Fedora policy does forbid having a package in the stable distro which is newer than the one in Rawhide. It's the same policy that forbids Fedora N from having a new version of a package than Fedora N+1. Upgrades should, well, upgrade.
I don't think there's anything really new here. You take your life in your hands when you run Rawhide, and you've been fairly lucky if it's been consistently usable for you for a number of years. I note your 'exploded' link actually refers to a mail describing how to fix things after the problematic update, thus implying that a full restore from backup shouldn't have been necessary?
to post comments)