On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +0000, mike cloaked wrote:Thanks, Mike, that's a great illustration of the point I was trying to
> Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but
> one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only two repos to
> maintain - whilst in Fedora it is 5 repos! One might wonder whether
> there is less effort needed to keep up to date by the developers in
> Arch or Fedora - I don't have the answer to that question but the devs
> have more knowledge about effort needed to maintain all of this to
> make a proper comparison?
make: the Arch model sounds much like what I was trying to suggest for
Fedora, a simple two-track 'devel' and 'stable' model with QA between
the tracks. And as you point out, on the face of it it appears to
involve much less drudgery for maintainers. I have never run Arch, but I
do get the general impression it provides a sufficiently reliable
experience for the kinds of users Fedora and Arch have.