1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
|
<!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=%3C201106131458.54678.stormi%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="005573.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="005565.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion</H1>
<B>Samuel Verschelde</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3C201106131458.54678.stormi%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion">stormi at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Mon Jun 13 14:58:54 CEST 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005573.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005565.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5500">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5500">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5500">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5500">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Le dimanche 12 juin 2011 22:46:33, Michael Scherer a écrit :
><i> Hi,
</I>><i>
</I>><i> so , with a little bit delay due to various things ( like everybody
</I>><i> asking stuff to us on irc on a hourly fashion ( people will I hope
</I>><i> recognize themselves )), Anne and I have reviewed the various proposals
</I>><i> made through years during the early period of the distribution, and
</I>><i> before at Mandriva. We took in account the feedback of people on forum,
</I>><i> on ml, nd those we have seen during events. We also discussed with
</I>><i> others distributions developers we know from Opensuse, Fedora, Debian,
</I>><i> Ubuntu about their release cycle, the choices they made and their
</I>><i> reasons.
</I>
A restitution to us of this overview of the other distros release cycles and
their choices, reasons, pros and cons would have been great, but I guess it
would have required much more time to write it. It would have helped
understand why the final decision you took was to keep the current model (not
counting the discussion about cycle duration and LTS). I'm not saying that I
want "rolling release", but beginning the discussion without saying much
concerning what has been a big discussion some months ago (and still is in the
forum) feels a bit weird to me. Especially when we kept telling people "wait,
we will have time to discuss it after Release 1".
><i> To simplify the discussion, the proposals are all based on the fact that
</I>><i> 2 or 3 releases could be supported at a time. We could have different
</I>><i> schemes for that ( LTS every X release ( ubuntu ), different level of
</I>><i> support ( mandriva )), but as this is a slightly different discussion,
</I>><i> let's assume 2 supported releases for now, and let's discuss later for
</I>><i> that ( ie next week, once this one is finished )
</I>
I can understand the reason for separating the discussions (simplification),
but it's hard to give a final opinion concerning the release cycle without
knowing whether there will be a LTS or not, when you care about the life cycle
duration. The backports policy also has a great impact to the matter : if we
manage to make using newer versions of popular software easy without much risk
nor obligatory need to upgrade, extending the release cycle is easier (I could
go with 12 months provided we find a way to improve hardware support as part of
the maintenance).
To take an example concerning the impact of having an LTS release or not :
- 6 months release cycle + 1 LTS every few releases => ok for me (ubuntu way,
each intermediate release is an intermediate milestone to the LTS)
- 6 months release cycle, without a LTS => not ok for me, life cycle really
too short
That said, as a choice has to be made, my vote goes to the compromise proposal
:<i> around 9 months release cycle (more or less 1 month depending on the amount
</I>of work to be done, adjustment to a given upstream release, KDE or GNOME for
example, and marketing calendar considerations).
Best regards
Samuel Verschelde
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005573.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005565.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5500">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5500">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5500">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5500">[ 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>
|
