Fedora major feature introduction; was Re: /usrmove?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 02/10/2012 04:51 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 11:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any Fedora
>> release which worked for me out of the box ...
> ...
>> That said, IMO, on the technical side, Fedora urgently needs a "calming
>> down/lean back/settlement phase", say 2 consecutive Fedora releases
>> without "revolutionary features" being introduced, to revisit
>> re-evaluate, revert/complete "old revolutionary features".
>
> To me, Fedora is the Linux R&D lab, and the releases are designed to
> introduce new features.

Well, to me Fedora is an advanced end-user development-oriented distro.

Being a 1st generation Linux user, who has been using Linux for approx. 
20 years and being a developer, I don't have much of a problem with 
facing an occasional bug every now and then, but I feel Fedora is trying 
to rush it too fast and is stumbling over its own feet.

> Still, you have a point about the worrying
> number of defects (I am personally affected by one of those: my X is
> misbehaving now, with terrible latency and update performance)---but I
> think we need to adjust the process rather than make strategic retreats.
Hmm, I am facing what I assume to "losing focus" issues and am facing 
thunderbird and firefox segfaults every 24-48 hours ;)

> Specifically, in my opinion the major developments should be planned and
> announced in a more organized way:
>
> - they are first proposed, discussed, adopted and announced in the
> timeframe of 1 or 2 releases before the release they go in.
>
> - they are introduced, on schedule and as a matter of process, into
> rawhide at the start of the cycle, rather than midstream or late.
>
> There are of course difficulties with this approach: first, it could
> slow down the development just because it adds steps to the process.

I would not consider a slow down to be a disadvantage. It would provide 
devs more time to develop and to test in their labs and provide other 
parties (packagers, upstreams, users) more time to adapt to on-going 
developments. It also likely would reduce the impresson of Fedora users 
being utilized as "Guinea Pigs" and Fedora being rawhide snapshots.

> Perhaps more importantly, many important improvements are driven by
> small groups or individuals
Some people will likely find this inappropriate, but I see a direct 
connection between certain individuals and the shape of Fedora.

Ralf