On 11/04/2012 05:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Lukasik <isimluk(a)fedoraproject.org> writes:
> Currently, each Fedora release is kept alive for 13(+/-) months. There
> were dozens of threads about shortening or prolonging period -- but I am
> not sure if something like the following has been ever discussed:
> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==1 -- is alive for 7 months.
> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==2 -- is alive for 7 months.
> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==0 -- is alive for 19 months.
> Additionally, maintainers might be encouraged to push their system wide
> changes into N%3==1. As well as they might be encouraged to make the
> Fedora N%3==0 their best bread.
Wouldn't that just encourage 99% of average users to ignore the
short-lived releases? It would sure be a damn tempting approach for me.
(Personally, all I want out of Fedora is a stable platform to get my
work done on, and the less often I have to reinstall, the better.)
If You are suggesting that the majority of our users would prefer
stability over features......well, in that case we may have something to
think about.
I think what you'd have using the short-lived releases is just
the same
kind of brave souls who are willing to run rawhide or pre-release
branched systems. And there aren't that many of them, so you'd get
little QA, which would help to ensure those releases remain buggy, thus
creating a nasty feedback loop that further helps to drive away people
whose main interest is not in helping to debug the system. Eventually
the short-lived releases would just be rawhide-with-a-different-name.
regards, tom lane