A tale of fixed release schedules
John
dingo at coco2.arach.net.au
Sun Mar 19 13:11:01 GMT 2006
javier wrote:
>
> The blog points out to other delays (fedora and suse) so I believe it's saying
> something like fixed released are VERY difficult to accomplish and don't
> believe anyone saying so.
I don't know about SUSE (or Dapper), but part of the problem with Fedora
is an ineffective freeze.
Ooo, there's a new gcc. Lets just rebuild everything with that.... So a
delay.
I think, without checking, another was caused by "Ooo, another Gnome.
Let's use that!"
Carried to extreme, this will result in another never-releasing distro
like Debian.
I have little doubt that, had FP kept to the original bounds set for the
FC5 project that it would have been able to release the product on time
I'm a little concerned about Fedora, I intended to install FC5 on a
laptop, but now I'm wondering how it can have been tested adequately.
As for Dapper, I said I haven't followed the reasons for its delay; I
always thought though that while the fixed-length release cycle was an
interesting, even a good, idea, that the challenge might prove too much.
Perhaps the plan for the next long-life release might better be to
release the base on time, then the Long Life version maybe two months
later, being basically the base plus fixes plus polish to ensure it's
something you can live with for however long. No new Gnome or KDE or
libc, but updates to Ubuntu's own toolset for configuration, management
and such.
You could also consider technology updates: again, no new KDE or Gnome -
those are too intrusive, but OpenOffice.org, the Mozilla suite and maybe
some other packages could be made available to those who want them.
More information about the sounder
mailing list