A tale of fixed release schedules

[Sasha Tsykin]

John wrote:
> 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.
> 
I don't think it has, ahving tried it out. I was a fan of core 4, but 
core 5 is still quite unstable in my opinion, after about and hour's use 
i scrapped it.
> 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.
> 
I think that the reason to the dapper delay was that they thought it 
lacked polish. The feature freeze seems to ahve been observed, more or 
less, although unrar has been added since the feature freeze.
> 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.
> 
When would they be updated? How would yu deal with the early bugs? I 
think that it is better at the moment to just keep Dapper as it is.

Just my two cents,

Sasha