From Fedora Project Wiki

Revision as of 05:16, 9 March 2010 by Poelstra (talk | contribs) (softened based on Josh's comments.)

This is only a draft at this time. The content needs to be discussed, refined, and agreed upon by the Fedora Board before an action is taken on the content within.

Stable Release Update Vision


Recent discussions on various Fedora mailing lists have shown that we currently have a wide variety of positions on what Fedora's update strategy should look like. These range from a rolling release, to a locked down security-only update solution. The lack of clarity on this issue contributes to confusion among package maintainers and end users alike.

Most people agree that broken updates are detrimental to the Fedora distribution and should be avoided at all costs.

Fewer people agree on:

  • How many updates are acceptable for a stable release and how to measure it
  • What constitutes an acceptable update to a stable release.

For these reasons, the Fedora Board is issuing a stable release update vision statement to help guide the creation and implementation of a Fedora Updates policy.

By creating this statement it is the Board's belief that:

  • End-user satisfaction with our distribution will increase
  • Developers and end-users will have a have a more solid stable release experience
  • End-users and developers will have more time to focus on other areas in Fedora


When creating an updates overview, there are some factors that need to be taken into account. The first, and foremost, is keeping in mind the broad criteria the Board set out for the entire Fedora distribution, which describe someone who:

  1. is voluntarily switching to Linux
  2. is familiar with computers but is not necessarily a hacker or developer
  3. is likely to collaborate in some fashion when something's wrong with Fedora, and
  4. wants to use Fedora for general productivity, either using desktop applications or a Web browser.

A shifting platform and visible behavioral changes will affect the user's productivity becuase the user must take time away from the desired tasks to learn how to engage in supporting tasks. Because productivity is postulated as important to this user, this outcome is undesirable. Similarly, dealing with a large number of updates on a regular basis is distracting from the user's desired productivity tasks. Also, while a user fitting these criteria is likely to file a bug when something goes wrong, the user does not therefore automatically expect new issues to emerge in a stable release as a result of consuming updates offered authoritatively. When such issues do emerge, the user's confidence in the platform is undermined.

Another factor to keep in mind is Fedora's rapid development cycle. A six month development cycle for a release allows Fedora to integrate the latest and greatest releases from upstream projects into the 'rawhide' distribution and have that body of work available to the user base in a relatively short amount of time. Ideally, this rapid paced release cycle allows both developers and users the chance to focus on a coherent, consistent, and well functioning set of software content per release.

Vision Statement

Taking the background and various factors above into account, the Board believes update streams should be managed with the following purposes:

  • The update repositories for stable releases of the Fedora distribution should provide our users with a consistent and high quality stream of updates.
  • Stable releases should provide a consistent user experience throughout the lifecycle, and concentrate on fixing bugs and security issues.
  • Close tracking of upstream should be done both through coordinating patch acceptance upstream, and by tracking the upstream version closely in Rawhide repo wherever possible (as opposed to the stable release).
  • More skilled and/or intrepid users are encouraged to use Rawhide along with participating in testing of stable branches during the development and pre-release period.
  • Stable releases, pre-release branches, and Rawhide should have a graduated approach to ease of updating. For example, if a proposed update does more than fix a bug or security issue, it should be harder to push that update to a stable release than to a pre-release branch or Rawhide.