On 11/04/2012 12:17 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 09:29 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +0000, mike cloaked wrote:
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?
Thanks, Mike, that's a great illustration of the point I was trying to
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.
Unfortunately, we do not have enough people doing QA for the model to
work. Each time I run fedora-easy-karma on branched, I have the feeling
to see always the same names ( ie, you and kevin ). I would be
interested to see some stats about this, because the difference between
a unused software and one who have no bug is thin.
And I am doubting that changing the release model will suddenly make
people do QA.
Adam's point is that reducing the number of branches requiring QA should
permit more thorough QA with the scarce resources available, resources
which currently are spread too wide and too thin with the current model.
- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
