User:Ajax/Stable Release Policy

From FedoraProject

< User:Ajax(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(draft 1)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{admon/warning|HI I AM A DRAFT|Don't take me seriously yet, I'm still under review.}}
 +
 
== Philosophy ==
 
== Philosophy ==
  

Revision as of 15:52, 24 August 2010

Warning (medium size).png
HI I AM A DRAFT
Don't take me seriously yet, I'm still under review.

Contents

Philosophy

Releases of the Fedora distribution are like releases of the individual packages that compose it. A major version number reflects a more-or-less stable set of features and functionality. As a result, we should avoid major updates of packages within a stable release. Updates should aim to fix only bugs, and not introduce new features, particularly when those features would materially affect the user or developer experience.

Rebases should be carefully considered with respect to their dependencies. A rebase that required (or provided) a new Python ABI, for example, would almost certainly not be allowed. Whenever possible packagers should work with upstream to come up with stable branch releases or common patches for older releases, particularly when rebasing would require large dependency chain updates.

Exceptions

Some classes of software will not fit in these guidelines. If your package does not fit in one of the classes below, but you think it should be allowed to update more rapidly, propose a new exception class to FESCO.

Security fixes

If upstream does not provide security fixes for a particular release, and if backporting the fix would be impractical, then a package may be rebased onto a version that upstream supports. The definition of practicality is left to the judgement of FESCO and the packager.

Interoperability

If a package primarily serves to interoperate with hardware or network protocols, and the interface changes, then a package may be rebased if necessary. This includes network games, IM protocols, hardware music players, cell phones, etc.

Database packages

Packages like virus scanners and spam filters typically have two components: a rules engine and a database. The database is expected to update frequently (sometimes not through the normal OS update mechanisms), but the rules engine is usually fairly static. However, if the maintained database changes to require a new version of the rules engine, then the package may be a candidate for rebasing.

Examples

  • Mozilla releases Firefox 4.0.1 with a security fix. Fedora 12 is shipping with 3.0.7, and though the bug is also present there, the fix in 4.0.1 does not apply because that part of the browser has been completely rewritten. Rebasing to 4.0.1 would be allowed since this is a security fix.
  • automake releases a new version that changes some warning conditions to errors. This would break the build process for existing packages, and would not be allowed.
  • AOL changes their instant messenger protocol in a way that requires an update to libpurple. The only upstream version of libpurple that supports the new protocol is an ABI break relative to the version in the current Fedora release. Rebasing would be allowed since this is an interoperability requirement.
  • Abiword releases a new version that adds compatibility with WordStar 4.0 documents. It also completely updates the user interface to use pie menus. This would be a feature enhancement with a major user experience change, and would not be allowed.