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
|
<!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:
><i> About the cycles:
</I>><i>
</I>><i> The problems with 6-months have been pointed out - my main concern
</I>><i> would be the lack of manpower and the continuous state of
</I>><i> "pre-release", no real room to sit back and contemplate hwat is and
</I>><i> what could be and all the rest. IMHO such a "contemplating" time is
</I>><i> necessary to keep the whole picture in focus.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> The problems with 12-months have also been pointed out and I agree
</I>><i> with them (too long out of public focus, too long for the main
</I>><i> userland applications, etc.).
</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> This being said, I am a friend of a rolling release like ArchLinux,
</I>><i> but I fear that our main target group is not up to this. Despite of
</I>><i> having to "burn yet another DVD" as somebody pointed out, the majority
</I>><i> seems to see this as normal and a good way. Of course I may be totally
</I>><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>
|
