On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 14:23 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 14:50 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been following a very interesting discussion in fedora-list about
> the recent transfer of FC3 to Fedora Legacy.
>
> Following Rahul's suggestion, I'm starting this discussion in -devel.
>
> I'm asking the FC foundation to consider the following:
>
> 1. Fedora's policy dictates that old releases (Current - 2) will be
> retired once the new release hits Test2.
I'm missing in your whole reasoning the link between the transfer to
legacy and upgrading. You imply it, but you don't explain the causal
relationship, which I think isn't there.
The policy actually sort of is "a few months after the next release so
that people can see it being stable enough". A good anchor for that "few
months" is -test2 release.
Taken from the release note:
"[59][Caution] This is a test release, not intended for end users
This is a test release and is provided for developers
and
testers to participate and provide feedback. It is not
meant
for end users."
Somehow, this doesn't sound too inviting.
While I agree that people should have switched to FC4 by now (though I
too use FC3 on some machines... somehow, at least for me, FC3 was a
better release), or be prepared to use FL when it EOLs.
I'm just looking to give people a-bit of extra time to sleep on it.
> This policy has one glaring
> drawback: User that seek an upgrade can either (1) install a mid-life
> release (FC4 in this case) or (2) install a beta release. (FC5 Test2 in
> this case).
this is true for any update decision unless you make that decision right
at the point in time a new release just came out.
Again, I accept that people (including myself) tend to delay things
until things smack them in the face. (God knows I do).
Having FL kick in when the current release is... released and having an
automated switch to FL tool is the best combo IMHO.
It'll give people an option to either:
A. Automatically move to FL.
B. Upgrade to a mid-life release. (FC5)
C. Upgrade to bleeding edge release. (FC6).
> This being I suspect that most users will play the waiting game before
> making a decision. They'll wait for the FC5 release and check how it
> behaves before making a decision, which in turn, will leave them
> vulnerable to security exploits.
I don't agree with this "which in turn". Fedora Legacy *WILL* release
updates for such security problems. The only thing that changed is which
people will provide the updates. That's it. Well and the policy that
only the most critical things (eg security updates and data corruption
bugs etc) get fixed. But.. don't you want that from a 14th month old
distro.. if it works for you for 14 months, you don't want mass upgrades
to new packages just for a few features you obviously didn't need anyway
(because if you did you'd have upgraded)
My main point is:
Switching over to FL isn't stream-lined/automated.
Most unsuspecting/novice users, (which are the ones most likely to
delay/forget the upgrade, and ones most likely to miss the
"hand-over-to-FL" message) are the ones least likely to be able to do
the FL transition by themselves.
Even-worse, these are the last users on this planet that you'll want to
leave unprotected by default. (Again, as the FL transition is mostly
manual)
> Extending the life of FC4 by (a mere?) ~2 months, will give FC4 users
> seeking an upgrade a chance to make an informed decision based upon how
> FC6 behaves, without leaving them open to security risks.
And then the next request will be that "FC5 is so new, please allow us 3
months before FC5 becomes stable". And voila, you're back at "test 2"
again.
Again I point you to the test release - release notes.
Even FC foundation treats test releases differently then normal
releases.
The current policy is based on the idea "You go to the next release. But
we'll be nice and give you several months for that next release to be
seen as stable". That's it. You are effectively asking to extend it a
full release.. (well you're not asking that, but that's the implication
of what you're asking given the very obvious and known next question
that will happen)
Why stop there? How about giving 3 year, RHEL like support? j/k.
No. FC is a community driven (well, sort of) bleeding edge distro and
should stay that way.
I just find the EOL at test2 release (especially considering the
possibility of test3/4/5/6 releases) to be... well... less then
desirable.
Gilboa