[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion

Mon Jun 13 15:00:11 CEST 2011

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Thomas Backlund <tmb at mageia.org> wrote:
+> Wolfgang Bornath skrev 13.6.2011 15:20:
+>>
+>> About the cycles:
+>>
+>> The 9-months seem to be a compromise - but I start to ask why we need
+>> such a fixed statement (which it would be, once published). We need a
+>> schedule for each cycle, that's true. Without a schedule we would
+>> never finish anything. But how about taking 9 months only as a "nice
+>> to meet" target, leaving us the option to set a roadmap after setting
+>> the specs of the next release - we could then go for a 8 or 10 months
+>> roadmap, depending on the specs.
+>>
+>
+> This is somewhat like what I had in my mind to write too, but you beat me to
+> it :)
+>
+> It could allow us to adapt a little for upstream releases.
+> But should we then decide that the limit is +/- 1 month ?
+>
+> Obviously there will still be people complaining that "you waited 10
+> months... if you had extended with ~2 more weeks... "this" or "that"
+> package would have been available too... and so on....
+>
+>
+> And something not to forget (this is more related to the specs):
+>
+> If an estimated upstream release of kde/gnome/... seem to fit our
+> schedule it _must_ be in Cauldron before version freeze so we
+> actually get some test/qa on it and not try to force it in by
+> "hey it's released ~x days before final mageia release so it
+>  must be added" attitude that tends to pop up at every freeze.
+
+This point and the one above ("if you had extended...") seems to be
+arguments for a fixed time release cycle? With a fixed release cycle
+no one would question why we didn't wait for the release of a new
+gnome/kde/<any package which someone wants>, since waiting the extra
+weeks would go against the release cycle. I'm not sure if that is
+enough of an argument against having a looser release cycle but... But
+then again, I can see the point of having the possibility to be a bit
+flexible.
+