There Is Now A Proposal For Shifting Fedora To An Annual Release Cadence

[rhavenn]

Egh, I like a slower core with faster rolling edges. Chakra Linux has / had the right idea or FreeBSD. Basically, take Arch Linux and make a core-lts and then make sure extra and community build against it. core-lts would still move forward, but stay with security fix releases and fix branches of software longer until it's well baked and stable.

[stupotace]

They just need to adopt the Arch>Manjaro method. By that I mean they need a Testing>Stable setup like Arch Linux has to have a 100% rolling solution and then have a semi-LTS that's ran similar to Manjaro and pulls in updates from the Rolling Stable as kinks are worked out and at predetermined times (like every Wednesday updates are thrown out unless it's a major security thing).

You basically just described the model employed by Sabayon Linux. 3 different repositories: limbo (testing), standard, and weekly. Every package starts out in limbo, once testers are ok with it, it goes to the standard repository. If no issues crop up, on Sunday it goes to the weekly repository. Security updates can be rushed through. 100% rolling. All bundled up in one distro.

[TemplarGR]

People still using Arch Linux? Solus is the way to go.

Solus? WTF is that? I looked it up and i ended up laughing... Thanks for the laughs dude...

[nanonyme]

"We aim to make good progress on this project for Fedora 29 and plan to make Silverblue the preferred Workstation variant by Fedora 30." source: https://silverblue.fedoraproject.org/stories
No wonder they want to update less often as people will be using flatpak.

Also the atomic updates that rpm-ostree has means that you will have less dependency issues updating over longer distances since it no longer matters which order things get updated (everything is updated in one go)

[Anvil]

this aint True

There is also some putting their weight behind shifting Fedora to more of a rolling-release distribution. But at present Fedora Rawhide isn't without its share of problems still making it really not suitable as a rolling-release platform, but after the F31 re-tooling and improvements around testing and automation, perhaps we'll see more stability driven into the development Rawhide repository

. its pretty stable compared to a " stable release "

[ermo]

Solus? WTF is that? I looked it up and i ended up laughing... Thanks for the laughs dude...

Don't dismiss it out of hand. Try it on a spare box. You might find yourself liking it more than you'd have thought.

[cjcox]

Actually, this is needed. Once Blue washed, a yearly update won't even be possible. IBM == Smarter Turtle.

[blackiwid]

They just need to adopt the Arch>Manjaro method. By that I mean they need a Testing>Stable setup like Arch Linux has to have a 100% rolling solution and then have a semi-LTS that's ran similar to Manjaro and pulls in updates from the Rolling Stable as kinks are worked out and at predetermined times (like every Wednesday updates are thrown out unless it's a major security thing).

The semi-LTS would be the desktop and workstation version. From there, they could take the semi-LTS and use it as a final testing version for server & LTS versions and push out regular, non-security updates, I dunno, let's say monthly. If done right it would allow a combination of rolling, security, and stability. I think more people want slow, gradual changes that are more vetted and they're tired of giant updates with major changes that risk breaking stuff.

And what's about Centos then? I gave it no try so far but I think it's underused, I kind of start liking debian again as a desktop for people that are not that technical. But even then some stuff is so dated, like gnome 3.22 which has as far as I remember some issues with filesharing with guests inside gnome-boxes, and it's just a bit crazy if you have a fedora installed let's say version 28 you would need to downgrade from gnome 3.28 to 3.22.

It's just a bit much, while with centos you have at least version 3.26. They have every year a release sometimes 2 and the core stays the same (kernel at least) but the gnome get-s updates. So you are never that far behind like debian at the moment with a 2 year old gnome version.

That seemes a more reasonable compromise and less risk of breaking stuff compared to fedora.

[untore]

I run the most broken shit ever, basically always on ubuntu+1, with ppas from whatever is the latest release, even having debian sid repos as last resort. Still i think i only have just 2 packages pinned. I long for the day when addaptrepo will match the correct ppa and not just blindly match the current release, but i guess whoever mantains that package must think that if the repo doesnt have your release you shouldnt use it

[carewolf]

And Debian admins are like: A new release every year?? Why the rush..