Opinion: Fedora Lacks an Update Policy

  • user warning: Table 'cache' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire FROM cache WHERE cid = 'filter:1:3862a1c8331110ee84110b3f14511c15' in /home/dowdle/public_html/montanalinux/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 121.
  • user warning: Table 'cache' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache SET data = '<p>I periodically check out <a href=\"http://planet.fedoraproject.org/\" target=\"_fedplan\">Fedora Planet</a> and today I noticed a big post by Josh Boyer entitled, <a href=\"http://jwboyer.livejournal.com/36737.html\" target=\"_joshboyer\">\"Why Fedora needs an Updates Policy\"</a>. I left a medium-sized comment there that I decided to post here as well.<br />\n<blockquote><i>It is working pretty well without a policy... but that isn\'t to say that a policy isn\'t needed, because it would be good to have an update policy. I however like the rapid pace of updates and version churn in Fedora and I think the codification of an update policy would be slanted to always favor more conservative updates.</p>\n<p>I like that Fedora updates KDE every time there is a new release from the KDE project. I like how I can get newer versions of things as they appear... and yes it will sometimes lead to breakage, but that was one of the charms of Fedora. On the other hand it seems that some packages are constantly updated, like every other week. That may be an exaggeration but sometimes it feels like that.</p>\n<p>Ideally there would be a conservative updates repo and a newest-stuff repo... but I\'m sure that would be more work than your already overworked group of Red Hat employees and Fedora volunteers would want to take on... and I don\'t blame them.</p>\n<p>Given the rapid 6 month development cycle of Fedora and the limited lifespan of any given release... the better answer, if stability is the considern, would be to lengthen the development release cycle... but no one wants to do that, right? Another solution would be to have stated LTS releases every couple of releases, but again... that idea has been batted around several times and dismissed.</p>\n<p>It seems many wish something would fall between the rapid development cycle of Fedora and the slow development cycle of RHEL. I don\'t see how that is going to happen.</p>\n<p>Not having an update policy and the recent complaints about it will be something that is heavily criticized by those from other distros and the Linux press... but it doesn\'t mean that the system you have been working with and the decisions you have been making haven\'t been working well enough. Package makers are supposed to submit their stuff to testing, people are supposed to test and provide feedback, and only when a package is deemed sufficiently ready should it be considered. I think it is better to leave it up to the package maintainers themselves on what version of a piece of software they want to release... unless of course is an underlying package that disrupts things above it... and you have tried to address that by identifying core/critical packages and putting more rules on their being updated.</p>\n<p>I would hope any update policy Fedora comes up with would retain the current flavor of Fedora with rapid and constant updates... rather than being stuck with older releases of things when upstream has fixed a lot of bugs and released newer versions with additional features. If you don\'t retain that quality then it will just encourage the development of yet more third-party repositories with newer software and just make an even bigger mess. This gets back to the seeming constant desire for Fedora to define itself and who it is targeting... and then potentially limiting itself to those more strictly defined goals. I for one like it fast and loose... but I\'m just a user. :)</i></p></blockquote>\n<br class=\"clear\" />', created = 1411149268, expire = 1411235668, headers = '' WHERE cid = 'filter:1:3862a1c8331110ee84110b3f14511c15' in /home/dowdle/public_html/montanalinux/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 121.
  • user warning: Table 'cache' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire FROM cache WHERE cid = 'filter:1:e2192e3a1b9c9b4f08fbb3fc6bbdca87' in /home/dowdle/public_html/montanalinux/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 121.
  • user warning: Table 'cache' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache SET data = '<p>An update policy maybe stated or unstated, an internal policy on when an update should be released. IMO, updates should be in the stable catagory and should not break the distro or the desktop. People do use Linux in production enviroments and that includes the desktop. Unstable and bleeding edge updates and or repositories should be outside the normal or \"default\" update repositories, thus leaving the user to decide if he or she wants reliability or bleeding edge. I appreciate the fact that Fedora is the \"developement\" arm of RedHat Linux but I also appreciate that Fedora is also a stable release, as emphasized by LinuxFormat presenting Fedora 12 as a \"newbies\" desktop in the latest issue to hit the news stands. So my question is where does \"fast and loose\" fit into this picture?</p>\n<br class=\"clear\" />', created = 1411149268, expire = 1411235668, headers = '' WHERE cid = 'filter:1:e2192e3a1b9c9b4f08fbb3fc6bbdca87' in /home/dowdle/public_html/montanalinux/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 121.
|

I periodically check out Fedora Planet and today I noticed a big post by Josh Boyer entitled, "Why Fedora needs an Updates Policy". I left a medium-sized comment there that I decided to post here as well.

It is working pretty well without a policy... but that isn't to say that a policy isn't needed, because it would be good to have an update policy. I however like the rapid pace of updates and version churn in Fedora and I think the codification of an update policy would be slanted to always favor more conservative updates.

I like that Fedora updates KDE every time there is a new release from the KDE project. I like how I can get newer versions of things as they appear... and yes it will sometimes lead to breakage, but that was one of the charms of Fedora. On the other hand it seems that some packages are constantly updated, like every other week. That may be an exaggeration but sometimes it feels like that.

Ideally there would be a conservative updates repo and a newest-stuff repo... but I'm sure that would be more work than your already overworked group of Red Hat employees and Fedora volunteers would want to take on... and I don't blame them.

Given the rapid 6 month development cycle of Fedora and the limited lifespan of any given release... the better answer, if stability is the considern, would be to lengthen the development release cycle... but no one wants to do that, right? Another solution would be to have stated LTS releases every couple of releases, but again... that idea has been batted around several times and dismissed.

It seems many wish something would fall between the rapid development cycle of Fedora and the slow development cycle of RHEL. I don't see how that is going to happen.

Not having an update policy and the recent complaints about it will be something that is heavily criticized by those from other distros and the Linux press... but it doesn't mean that the system you have been working with and the decisions you have been making haven't been working well enough. Package makers are supposed to submit their stuff to testing, people are supposed to test and provide feedback, and only when a package is deemed sufficiently ready should it be considered. I think it is better to leave it up to the package maintainers themselves on what version of a piece of software they want to release... unless of course is an underlying package that disrupts things above it... and you have tried to address that by identifying core/critical packages and putting more rules on their being updated.

I would hope any update policy Fedora comes up with would retain the current flavor of Fedora with rapid and constant updates... rather than being stuck with older releases of things when upstream has fixed a lot of bugs and released newer versions with additional features. If you don't retain that quality then it will just encourage the development of yet more third-party repositories with newer software and just make an even bigger mess. This gets back to the seeming constant desire for Fedora to define itself and who it is targeting... and then potentially limiting itself to those more strictly defined goals. I for one like it fast and loose... but I'm just a user. :)


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Fast & Loose vs Stable and Unstable

An update policy maybe stated or unstated, an internal policy on when an update should be released. IMO, updates should be in the stable catagory and should not break the distro or the desktop. People do use Linux in production enviroments and that includes the desktop. Unstable and bleeding edge updates and or repositories should be outside the normal or "default" update repositories, thus leaving the user to decide if he or she wants reliability or bleeding edge. I appreciate the fact that Fedora is the "developement" arm of RedHat Linux but I also appreciate that Fedora is also a stable release, as emphasized by LinuxFormat presenting Fedora 12 as a "newbies" desktop in the latest issue to hit the news stands. So my question is where does "fast and loose" fit into this picture?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.