humble suggestion to Fedora developers

[Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.]

On 01/27/2013 08:00 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:55:24 +1100 Philip Rhoades <phil at pricom.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 . .
> But the rush to release will still be there, whether it is a 6- or 9-
> or 12-month cycle? At the point of release, inadequately-tested new
> features may still be a problem, no?
>
> I think a more reliable approach is to have a rolling release model,
> with periodic snapshot RPMs in a cycle? The periodic snapshots could be
> benchmark-based, so no specific time schedule, rather than
> calendar-based?
>
> Ranjan
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop!
> Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
>
>
Now THIS sounds feasible, and it would make for a smoother transition 
from one release to the next! I wonder whom I would have to speak 
to.....to see if this could be done? Or is it a group thing?.....would I 
direct something like this towards the kernel maintainers?....the 
admins?.....who would get "the call"?...


EGO II