[Mageia-dev] How will be the realese cycle?

Thu Oct 7 17:15:45 CEST 2010

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 13:27, Samuel Verschelde <stormi at laposte.net> wrote:
+>
+> Le jeudi 7 octobre 2010 12:10:11, Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
+>>
+>> You describe quite what Kiosk was designed for (and what most App
+>> Store are nowadays anyway).
+>>
+>> > OK, buchan, how do we start ? Shall we put improvements proposals
+>> > (UI, website, ...) on the wiki, on http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=rollingdebate ?
+>>
+>> No, these are two different things. Above wiki page is for stating a
+>> perceived problem, and detailing what people view should be (or not
+>> be) done.
+>>
+>> Stating the need for, and specifying/scratching a web-based (or
+>> semi-web-based) UI for a socially augmented software library is
+>> another thing.
+>
+> Well, it's different, but to me part of the debate on the release cycle. As Buchan
+> stated, better perception of backports by users could bring the benefits that
+> some people see in a rolling release. Plus, I'm not only talking about web-based
+> UI, but also rpmdrake improvements regarding backports.
+
+Well, rpmdrake is a software library UI. Be it Web-based or not,
+that's another issue.
+
+I totally agree that the library contents and possibilities perception has to be
+improved. At least that we need to clarify/simplify/change how
+existing/new software
+and updates/upgrades are presented to the user.
+
+Maybe shifting from a strictly system-related point of view (current
+rpmdrake UI)
+to a more application/task/user-related one. Or maybe it's a deeper issue than
+just presentation/UI (like really handling differently how software
+gets integrated
+and packaged on/above/within the operating system).
+
+But I just don't know. And I believe we're several in this case.
+
+It is just not clear at all that this discussion about "rolling" distro,
+backports, etc. is directly linked to that.
+
+So the above linked wiki page is about stating and nailing down the problem
+several people here seem to agree there is:
+ - first, make sure everyone speak about the same thing; so everyone should
+   state her own point of view, detailed;
+ - second, work this refined problem in depth, so that we see what is really
+   the problem, and not only the symptoms;
+ - third, once the problem is clearly stated, the solution(s) may be more
+   obvious to see/discute/define.
+
+Note that at this current stage of discussion, it may as well be that there are
+_several_ issues mixed as one. So we could as well split the problem into
+relevant parts.
+
+> However, if you think we shouldn't put an entry saying "no rolling release,
+> but improve current backports scheme, see proposal below", I won't do it.
+
+You can too. But then let's make sure this is related to the discussion (it may,
+I am not sure) and then, let's define the bigger picture that links all this
+together (would need a separate section in the wiki page then, or yet another
+page to state the big view of the issue).
+
+
+Romain
+