humble suggestion to Fedora developers

James Freer jessejazza3.uk at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 21:04:55 UTC 2013


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +0000, James Freer wrote:
>> I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in
>> considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release
>> cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with
>
> Having some experience with timing development cycles in agile/scrum, the
> problem with a longer release cycle is that the amount of work bitten off
> grows to match, and you end up with the same scramble on a bigger scale,
> actually making the problem worse rather than better.
>
> I think we should keep on a six-month release cycle but also have "epic"
> planning for features across cycles. There was a suggestion at Fudcon to
> move to using point releases, each point with a six-month cycle but with a
> bigger two-year cycle wrapping a series of releases together.
>
> Matthew Miller

I wasn't suggesting a bi-annual release... but an annual one. I've
used the ubuntu LTS and it's fine for the first year and then quite a
few apps are out of date. I found 6 months too frequent for installing
and did an annual update which i found about right. Two years ends up
with problems.

Only problem with a fixed point release as has happened with kubuntu
8.04 (think it was a while now) one ends up with two kernels as at
that stage there was a change over. It was a hiiccup but the release
had to go out on a certain day. F18 was late by almost two months as
developers tried to solve the problem. Fedora are not quite as tight
(allow a week or so) as ubuntu are on releases.

I don't know as much as yourself and certainly wasn't attempting to
create a contrary debate. But i'm now thinking that a rolling release
is the better option for my uses.

james


More information about the users mailing list