summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005532.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005532.html')
-rw-r--r--zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005532.html183
1 files changed, 183 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005532.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005532.html
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ac91a2c7c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005532.html
@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+<!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=%3Calpine.LMD.2.00.1106131021040.30401%40astro.scholar.athome%3E">
+ <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
+ <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
+ <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="005657.html">
+ <LINK REL="Next" HREF="005535.html">
+ </HEAD>
+ <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
+ <H1>[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion</H1>
+ <B>Dale Huckeby</B>
+ <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3Calpine.LMD.2.00.1106131021040.30401%40astro.scholar.athome%3E"
+ TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion">spock at evansville.net
+ </A><BR>
+ <I>Mon Jun 13 17:37:25 CEST 2011</I>
+ <P><UL>
+ <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005657.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
+</A></li>
+ <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005535.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
+</A></li>
+ <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
+ <a href="date.html#5532">[ date ]</a>
+ <a href="thread.html#5532">[ thread ]</a>
+ <a href="subject.html#5532">[ subject ]</a>
+ <a href="author.html#5532">[ author ]</a>
+ </LI>
+ </UL>
+ <HR>
+<!--beginarticle-->
+<PRE>On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
+
+&gt;<i> About the cycles:
+</I>&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;<i> The problems with 6-months have been pointed out - my main concern
+</I>&gt;<i> would be the lack of manpower and the continuous state of
+</I>&gt;<i> &quot;pre-release&quot;, no real room to sit back and contemplate hwat is and
+</I>&gt;<i> what could be and all the rest. IMHO such a &quot;contemplating&quot; time is
+</I>&gt;<i> necessary to keep the whole picture in focus.
+</I>&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;<i> The problems with 12-months have also been pointed out and I agree
+</I>&gt;<i> with them (too long out of public focus, too long for the main
+</I>&gt;<i> userland applications, etc.).
+</I>&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;<i> The 9-months seem to be a compromise - but I start to ask why we need
+</I>&gt;<i> such a fixed statement (which it would be, once published). We need a
+</I>&gt;<i> schedule for each cycle, that's true. Without a schedule we would
+</I>&gt;<i> never finish anything. But how about taking 9 months only as a &quot;nice
+</I>&gt;<i> to meet&quot; target, leaving us the option to set a roadmap after setting
+</I>&gt;<i> the specs of the next release - we could then go for a 8 or 10 months
+</I>&gt;<i> roadmap, depending on the specs.
+</I>&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;<i> This being said, I am a friend of a rolling release like ArchLinux,
+</I>&gt;<i> but I fear that our main target group is not up to this. Despite of
+</I>&gt;<i> having to &quot;burn yet another DVD&quot; as somebody pointed out, the majority
+</I>&gt;<i> seems to see this as normal and a good way. Of course I may be totally
+</I>&gt;<i> wrong with this assessment!
+</I>
++1
+
+The consensus so far seems to be:
+
+6 months is too short
+12 months is too long
+9 months is juuuuust about right
+
+and that applies not only to developers having a chance to catch their breath between versions, but
+users too. A 6-month turnaround feels like I'm constantly updating, but a 12-month wait between
+versions is like forever. And as wobo suggests, 9 months need be only an average, with a target date
+for the next release, taking into account upstream developments, decided on after each one. Also,
+the target date should be approximate at first and firmed up only as we get closer to release.
+
+spock
+</PRE>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<!--endarticle-->
+ <HR>
+ <P><UL>
+ <!--threads-->
+ <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005657.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
+</A></li>
+ <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005535.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
+</A></li>
+ <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
+ <a href="date.html#5532">[ date ]</a>
+ <a href="thread.html#5532">[ thread ]</a>
+ <a href="subject.html#5532">[ subject ]</a>
+ <a href="author.html#5532">[ 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>