Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Fedora 20 Has Been Delayed Yet Again

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Ubuntu has delayed itself in the past, but there's been a few releases in the last couple years where they said "We know its broken. But the updates are coming down." So instead of just pushing the release a week or so they instead make everyone install with broken install images, then download launch day patches to fix things. It was when they started doing things like that, that I moved onto Arch and Fedora lol
    Yeah, that's what I was referring to. I think I recall in particular that 10.04 had some controversial problems that weren't fixed for awhile, but I don't remember exactly what.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Why do they even stick dates on these things?

    Just say - sure we will probably release it sometime, who's got the luck bet?

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pajn View Post
    Why do they even stick dates on these things?

    Just say - sure we will probably release it sometime, who's got the luck bet?
    Schedule is important for the planning and quality even if the planning prioritizes blocker bugs over a rigid schedule.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pajn View Post
    Why do they even stick dates on these things?

    Just say - sure we will probably release it sometime, who's got the luck bet?
    It provides motivation, puts a bit of pressure on people to deliver. Release dates can be slipped, if there are serious enough defects still needing to be fixed, but you can't do any kind of planning if you don't have a target date at all..

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delgarde View Post
    It provides motivation, puts a bit of pressure on people to deliver. Release dates can be slipped, if there are serious enough defects still needing to be fixed, but you can't do any kind of planning if you don't have a target date at all..
    AFAIK, neither Slackware nor Debian nor RHEL have fixed release dates, nonetheless they are the most stable distros out there. It would be better to set certain design goals and release when its done instead of setting fixed dates, IMHO.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    AFAIK, neither Slackware nor Debian nor RHEL have fixed release dates, nonetheless they are the most stable distros out there. It would be better to set certain design goals and release when its done instead of setting fixed dates, IMHO.
    That is false dichotomy often preached by people who have no involvement in any of these projects. Fedora's schedule is neither time driven or feature driven purely but instead includes both goals and a fixed schedule with the ability to move the schedule based on pre-release quality. RHEL is a particularly poor case to use as the planning process is pretty similar to Fedora in many ways with the exception that the schedule is not published externally.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    It would be better to set certain design goals and release when its done instead of setting fixed dates, IMHO.
    Who said anything about "fixed dates"? This very existence of this article shows that Fedora doesn't have such a thing. What they have is target dates - something that lets them plan for what will (and won't) be ready in time, but which can be delayed if they find showstopper bugs or simply decide they need more time for testing. And it *is* testing that causes it - they're pretty strict about new features having to meet cut-off dates (or be cut), but when serious defects are found, the release gets delayed...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delgarde View Post
    Who said anything about "fixed dates"? This very existence of this article shows that Fedora doesn't have such a thing. What they have is target dates - something that lets them plan for what will (and won't) be ready in time, but which can be delayed if they find showstopper bugs or simply decide they need more time for testing. And it *is* testing that causes it - they're pretty strict about new features having to meet cut-off dates (or be cut), but when serious defects are found, the release gets delayed...
    OK, I shouldn't have said fixed dates, but a somewhat fixed release cycle. Aim for Fedora is to release every six months, which is date based release, even if no specific day is announced. Yes, this is delayed when showstopper bugs are found, unlike in other distributions with a fixed release cycle. What I meant is that for me personally it makes more sense to say: "We will release when we have these specific features ready in our rewrite of Anaconda, when we have stably integrated Mesa 9.2, ...". I think you get the idea: We release when these features are done. This would prevent "news" like "Look, Fedora is delayed!", which to many people sounds like "Look, they don't get their shit together!" and it would prevent such horrible reviews that Fedora got when it was released with a version of the new Anaconda that most people couldn't stand, just because it wasn't in a state that, according to many of those reviews, should have been released. Would it pose a problem for Fedora to not have a fixed release cycle? Or, in other words, what are the real reasons for that? Why six months, not 4, 8, 10, ... ?

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    OK, I shouldn't have said fixed dates, but a somewhat fixed release cycle. Aim for Fedora is to release every six months, which is date based release, even if no specific day is announced.
    Fedora releases sometimes have been 4 months or 9 months depending on the release goals but yeah roughly six months usually. This was considered to be a good balance

    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedor...dule_Rationale

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    OK, I shouldn't have said fixed dates, but a somewhat fixed release cycle. Aim for Fedora is to release every six months, which is date based release, even if no specific day is announced. Yes, this is delayed when showstopper bugs are found, unlike in other distributions with a fixed release cycle. What I meant is that for me personally it makes more sense to say: "We will release when we have these specific features ready in our rewrite of Anaconda, when we have stably integrated Mesa 9.2, ...". I think you get the idea: We release when these features are done.
    But that's exactly what they don't want to do. Their preferred approach is to release regularly, with whatever features are ready - not to release it when all the features are ready, and to delay until everything is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •