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
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
|
<!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=%3C201106132306.12327.tvl83%40gmx.de%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="005811.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="005557.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion</H1>
<B>Thorsten van Lil</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3C201106132306.12327.tvl83%40gmx.de%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion">tvl83 at gmx.de
</A><BR>
<I>Mon Jun 13 23:06:11 CEST 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005811.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005557.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5551">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5551">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5551">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5551">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Am Sonntag, 12. Juni 2011, 22:46:33 schrieb Michael Scherer:
><i> Proposal 1:
</I>><i> 6 months release cycle -> 12 months life cycle
</I>><i> ( Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandriva < 2010.1 && Mandriva != 2006.0 )
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Proposal 2:
</I>><i> 9 months release cycle -> 18 months life cycle
</I>><i> ( ~ opensuse and the one we used for Mageia 1 )
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Proposal 3:
</I>><i> 12 months release cycle -> 24 months life cycle
</I>><i> ( Mandriva > 2010.1 )
</I>
Here is my opinion for this discussion:
The question of the release cycle is conected with the question of the release
model.
And all proposals we make are restricted by the manpower.
Actally there are two release models active in the linux scene:
1. a static release every X months
2. a rolling release
*But* a mix of both is also possible.
A rolling release has following advantages:
1. the distribution is always up to date (also hardware support)
2. no re-install over and over again
and following disadvantages
1. it's a heavy load for the devs
2. we can almost only ship vanilla software. No real integration in the
distribution. With all it's advantages and disadvantages
3. hard to guarantee the stability over the years
4. no inovations within the software (see second disadvantage)
A static releas has the following advantages:
1. less load for the devs
2. easier to support
3. patching is possible
4. most distribution use this release model
and followind disadvantages;
1. no new hardware support
2. no new software versions
This is the current situation.
Some users also wants the a mix of both (also called a light rolling release)
and combine the advantages as far as possible.
This could look like this:
Bring up a release once a year. The core (kernel, glib, ...) will only get
minor updates. Apllications like firefox, libreoffice, ... will always be up to
date (rolling). Maybe also the desktop envirenments could be rolling but this
is very heavy.
The light rolling releas has the following advantages:
1. the apps are always up to date
2. less load for devs than a full rolling release
3. patching is possible
4. innovations are possible
5. no other distribution is using such a release model
6. the stability is easier to guarentee than rolling release
and following disadvantages
1. more load than static release
2. no new hardware support (could be done via backports if needed)
If such a release model is possible, is up to the devs to decide (I can't
evaluate the work load). But we have to bear in mind, that we have enough
range for new inovations.
Please keep also in mind, that a distribution doesn't or shouldn't exists for
end in itself. It's just a operating systems and as long as there isn't a real
need for re-installing we shouldn't. Thus, we shouldn't enforce the user for
re-installing more than needed.
Hope this wasn't to much text ^^
Greetings,
Thorsten
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005811.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005557.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5551">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5551">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5551">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5551">[ 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>
|
