humble suggestion to Fedora developers

[Philip Rhoades]

People,


> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:18:40 -0500
> From: "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." <eoconnor25 at gmail.com>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: Re: humble suggestion to Fedora developers
> Message-ID: <51058BA0.8020509 at GMail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> On 01/23/2013 02:59 PM, James Freer wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff <joe at zeff.us> wrote:
>>> On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>> because first new anaconda was approved and integration
>>>> all over the distribution started and after that damage
>>>> was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready"
>>> 
>>> So what you're saying is, it was approved before it was ready.  
>>> Judging from
>>> what else you wrote, the devs didn't realize it when they approved 
>>> it.  This
>>> suggests to me that approval came too early in the process, before 
>>> proper
>>> testing was done and that important parts of the program hadn't been
>>> completed.  If so, is there anything that can be done to prevent 
>>> this from
>>> happening yet again?
>> 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
>> Ubuntu and Fedora. Some distros use a two year release which is too
>> long. One or two use an annual release which i think is about 
>> right...
>> development and testing can fully take place. Why not consider an
>> annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take
>> place?
>> 
>> james
> I would have to agree with you James, it might not be a bad idea for
> them to stretch their release time out a bit? I would have positives
> from all sides. First,....the developers would be able to REALLY put
> their apps and what-not through a GRUELING testing session, this
> way...when they say it works.....IT WORKS! Second,.....the public
> wouldn't find themselves scurrying to acquire the latest version, and
> slamming it onto their machines without knowing that things won't 
> crash
> & burn un-necessarily......also it would give the public time to 
> "adapt"
> and become comfortable with the latest release, instead of going into
> shock at the arrival of a new desktop environment...or new 
> feature-sets
> that were not there before. I guess it's just a matter of someone (or 
> a
> LOT of someone's) voicing their opinion loud enough to be heard by the
> higher-ups? I don't know that they would actually change things around
> like that....(it would be NICE!) but eventually they might get 
> restless
> enough to completely flip thing around and have longer time frames
> between releases.


Maybe we should try out, say, a nine month cycle and if it doesn't suit 
- go back to six months?  I am conscious though of the human tendency to 
put off things when there is more time to get them done . .

Regards,

Phil.
-- 
Philip Rhoades

GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW	2001
Australia
E-mail:  phil at pricom.com.au