On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 08:39 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:45:30PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 22:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > > > This here sounds strange: > > > | The update rate for any given release should drop off over time, > > > | approaching zero near release end-of-life; since updates are primarily > > > | bugfixes, fewer and fewer should be needed over time. > > > > > > This essentially says that after 12 or 18 months all software in Fedora > > > is bug free and does not need any updates. This is a very strange > > > assumption. E.g. why do we stop supporting the software after it became > > > totally stable? IMHO this claim cannot reasonably be made. > > > > There is a difference between "stable" and "bug free". Known > > limitations are preferable to moving targets. > > It says "updates are primarily bugfixes, fewer and fewer should be > ^^^^^^^^ > needed over time", why are less bugfixes needed unless because there are > less bugs? It does not say anything about packages becoming stable.
I have real trouble parsing this paragraph. Say you ship with 50 bugs in a package. As you update it through the lifetime of a release, that number should decrease more or less monotonically. The bugs that take longest to fix are presumably the hardest ones to fix, and thus the ones that either require significant rewrites (and become out of scope for an update release), or won't get fixed at all. So it's really just describing what _happens_ naturally if you don't rebase all the time. I mean, imagine if it said the reverse: "Updates within a release should be very rare initially, and become more frequent as the OS approaches end of life." That's pretty clearly insane. That would imply that the older a release got, the less predictable it would become. That's exactly what we don't want. - ajax
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
