[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion

Tue Jun 14 19:33:00 CEST 2011

Hi,
+
+On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Thorsten van Lil <tvl83 at gmx.de> wrote:
+> Am 14.06.2011 15:43, schrieb Michael Scherer:
+>>>
+>>> Yes, but Backports are not officially supported and we wouldn't advice
+>>> new users
+>>> >  to backports normally.
+>>
+>> I am sorry, but I fail to follow your reasoning.
+>
+> What I meant is: We can't tell the user to use the backports and if he runs
+> in trouble we let him alone and say he shouldn't have used it. If we
+> officially support and care for backports, than this is a different case.
+
+Agreed on this.
+
+>> And as I said in another mail, if people want to follow arch linux and
+>> do a better job, maybe they should start to explain what are the weak
+>> points of the distribution and then do proposal on stuff that can be
+>> done better instead of asking to copy cat hoping this would be better.
+>
+> I don't want a full rolling release, because of the listed disadvantages.
+> So, if you ask me what is "wrong" with Arch, I would say:
+> * due to the rolling release, it's nearly vanilla. This doesn't match
+> requirements of Mageia
+> * no innovations (because of vanilla)
+> * a rolling core system has a negative correlation with it's stability
+> * heavy work load
+> * ...
+>
+> So, I don't ask for a copy of Arch nor any other distribution. I asked
+> (although it wasn't my idea) for something new. An compromise: a light
+> rolling release.
+>
+> Further lack of clarity?
+
+So basically what people call a "light" rolling release in this thread
+is a rolling release where packages are tested and integrated? And
+what you call a (non-light) rolling release is a development rolling
+release (cooker, cauldron…) where packages are just dropped without
+prior security checked as fast as they are made available by their
+respective authors?
+
+If so, I would say, yeah obviously "light" (I find this naming quite
+paradoxical then) is the kind of rolling I would like. And that's not
+that new, that's the kind of rolling release in Gentoo (which I found
+much more stable than my years of experience in Mandriva, and also
+more peaceful as I don't have to fear the big update every 6 months
+which will definitely break a lot of small stuffs everywhere at once).
+
+Also yes, I guess this could be simulated using the current backport
+system becoming a supported repo (with package getting appropriately
+tested and the right integration into the distribution done). I don't
+say this is the ideal system, but that can be a first step in the
+evolution.
+As Anne Nicolas said, this may be only a matter of rewriting the policy.
+Yet if doing so, I think it would still need abstraction on UI side at
+least. User should not have to deal and even understand concept as
+backport, or whatever. On the user point of view, all one should care
+is knowing a newer version, which is supposed tested and approved, is
+available.
+
+Jehan
+