diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005507.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005507.html | 201 |
1 files changed, 201 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005507.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005507.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d807e1ebf --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005507.html @@ -0,0 +1,201 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3C4DF60BE3.6090905%40mageia.org%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="005503.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="005531.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion</H1> + <B>Thomas Backlund</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3C4DF60BE3.6090905%40mageia.org%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion">tmb at mageia.org + </A><BR> + <I>Mon Jun 13 15:08:51 CEST 2011</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005503.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005531.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#5507">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#5507">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#5507">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#5507">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>David Sjölin skrev 13.6.2011 16:00: +><i> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Thomas Backlund<<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">tmb at mageia.org</A>> wrote: +</I>>><i> Wolfgang Bornath skrev 13.6.2011 15:20: +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> About the cycles: +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> The 9-months seem to be a compromise - but I start to ask why we need +</I>>>><i> such a fixed statement (which it would be, once published). We need a +</I>>>><i> schedule for each cycle, that's true. Without a schedule we would +</I>>>><i> never finish anything. But how about taking 9 months only as a "nice +</I>>>><i> to meet" target, leaving us the option to set a roadmap after setting +</I>>>><i> the specs of the next release - we could then go for a 8 or 10 months +</I>>>><i> roadmap, depending on the specs. +</I>>>><i> +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> This is somewhat like what I had in my mind to write too, but you beat me to +</I>>><i> it :) +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> It could allow us to adapt a little for upstream releases. +</I>>><i> But should we then decide that the limit is +/- 1 month ? +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> Obviously there will still be people complaining that "you waited 10 +</I>>><i> months... if you had extended with ~2 more weeks... "this" or "that" +</I>>><i> package would have been available too... and so on.... +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> And something not to forget (this is more related to the specs): +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> If an estimated upstream release of kde/gnome/... seem to fit our +</I>>><i> schedule it _must_ be in Cauldron before version freeze so we +</I>>><i> actually get some test/qa on it and not try to force it in by +</I>>><i> "hey it's released ~x days before final mageia release so it +</I>>><i> must be added" attitude that tends to pop up at every freeze. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> This point and the one above ("if you had extended...") seems to be +</I>><i> arguments for a fixed time release cycle? With a fixed release cycle +</I>><i> no one would question why we didn't wait for the release of a new +</I>><i> gnome/kde/<any package which someone wants>, since waiting the extra +</I>><i> weeks would go against the release cycle. I'm not sure if that is +</I>><i> enough of an argument against having a looser release cycle but... But +</I>><i> then again, I can see the point of having the possibility to be a bit +</I>><i> flexible. +</I> +Well, it was intended to point out the problem with the "flexible" +approach, and a possible "fix" by deciding some limits to the flexibility. + +-- +Thomas + +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005503.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005531.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#5507">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#5507">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#5507">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#5507">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + +<hr> +<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list</a><br> +</body></html> |