On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:55:24 +1100 Philip Rhoades <p...@pricom.com.au> wrote:
> People, > > > > Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:18:40 -0500 > > From: "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." <eoconno...@gmail.com> > > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@lists.fedoraproject.org> > > Subject: Re: humble suggestion to Fedora developers > > Message-ID: <51058ba0.8020...@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 <j...@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 -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
