The Degrading Quality Of X.Org Releases?
On the X.Org mailing list, Alan Coopersmith had raised concerns over the release criteria for X11 and how with recent releases (namely X.Org 7.3), the de facto standard for making a release was far from being met. Alan, Sun's X engineer, had listed the release criteria as the blocker bug list being cleared, the complete tree/release modules being build-able on at least one platform, XTS successfully running on at least one platform, and the documentation being updated and then released. X.Org 7.3 was released eight days late and failed to fully meet any of the requirements -- some X.Org 7.3 driver packages didn't even build against the respective X server.
Alan Coopersmith's points are certainly valid, and in a rush to meet deadlines and push out software, the quality has lessened. But don't get the wrong impression, X.Org developers do work hard, are doing a great job, and that isn't to be discounted! This problem doesn't exclusively apply to the X.Org development community, but largely across the free software spectrum. To succeed, however, something must be done and we must push for quality-driven releases as we prepare for the next wave of Linux desktop users. We must have timed releases but at the same time we need to expect at least the same level of quality.
What are your thoughts on X.Org 7.3? How can open-source software releases be rejuvenated to prevent degradation? Share your thoughts in the Phoronix Forums.
Latest Linux Hardware Reviews
Latest Linux Articles
Latest Linux News
Latest Forum Discussions