Proposed Process Changes For X Server 1.8

[mirv]

Leaving aside any issues of what's best for development, etc etc etc, I personally just think it's great to see that they're going to try do something to improve the release cycle of X. Hope it all works out ok.

[DeepDayze]

This way Xorg, KDE , GNOME would have the same 6 month release cycle... If only those would be synced to happen at the same time ... Would be so nice...

If all those things hit at the same time, you'd better be prepared for a massive download at update time. I would prefer staggering the releases of the X server, desktop and kernel to give the distros a chance to test the new packages and put them in their repos

[sabriah]

Guess what kind of feedback X.org would start getting from Michael if they started going with the "release early, release often" mantra?
"Yet another X.org monthly release with no new features." "No significant features this month either." etc. So instead of complaining that X.org doesn't do releases we'd start getting complaints that releases don't contain anything. Solution: shut the people up and let developers do their stuff.

Here we agree again!

BTW, I wonder what kind of suits the X-men have. Hmmm...

[nanonyme]

Guess what kind of feedback X.org would start getting from Michael if they started going with the "release early, release often" mantra?
"Yet another X.org monthly release with no new features." "No significant features this month either." etc. So instead of complaining that X.org doesn't do releases we'd start getting complaints that releases don't contain anything. Solution: shut the people up and let developers do their stuff.

[sabriah]

You completely and utterly missed my point, I think. My point was that you should be more forgiving on X.org developers. Everyone seems to be expecting pretty much miracles from them, then settling for a lot less for eg AMD/ATi developers. (who you took as an example for monthly releases and I took as an example of how monthly releases do not actually work) How is that fair? Why should we expect X.org developers somehow magically would start getting features done if they got strict deadlines even though no one else does? (the developers who have strict deadlines release unfinished and immature software, period; you have to wait for them to finish what they're doing and then release, not the other way around)

Ok, so we agreed all the time!

Yes, and the point I was trying to make that if you release at regular intervals users can anticipate their releases. If it includes some feature, fine. If not, they can wait if they like to.

The point would be that there would always be a release, every six months or so. If a feature is not included in time. Ok, fine, we'll have to wait another six months, even if the feature was finished a few days later.

Besides, even in a monthly release schedule, ATI does have a fairly wide window of 30 days. Some months it is released around the 21st, other months earlier or later. It is not carved in stone.

Follow the release cycle of of KDE 4. I think that was a nice example of how it could be done.

If a feature wasn't ready in time it was pushed to the next release.

"Early and often" seems to be the mantra - since a long time http://www.catb.org/~esr//writings/h...r/ar01s04.html.

It appears you get more gradual changes using that style, and less api changes etc. But, I haven't followed the development of X too well to really judge. Armchair Judge? Maybe.

[nanonyme]

Because I have worked as a developer and I know hard it can be to deliver...

You completely and utterly missed my point, I think. My point was that you should be more forgiving on X.org developers. Everyone seems to be expecting pretty much miracles from them, then settling for a lot less for eg AMD/ATi developers. (who you took as an example for monthly releases and I took as an example of how monthly releases do not actually work) How is that fair? Why should we expect X.org developers somehow magically would start getting features done if they got strict deadlines even though no one else does? (the developers who have strict deadlines release unfinished and immature software, period; you have to wait for them to finish what they're doing and then release, not the other way around)

[sabriah]

This makes NO sense. Sorry, but X.org, whether you take only the X-Server or X.org, is at a point where the main thing people complain about is missing features/unstable performance.

Let's try this from another viewpoint: What is your reason for upgrading to X-Server 1.7? Stability? Really? What got people excited was the possibilities of Multi-Pointer-X, and even that didn't make it completely.

I don't really get upgrading for upgradings sake. Bug-fix-releases are still happening, as 1.7.x. There is NO need to bump version-numbers and Apis without having anything interesting to show for.

Seeing how the X-Server has been growing for a few years, there's always a lot of old code involved when something like XInput or pciaccess gets reworked, so I personally would love it if they would wait with their releases till all the infrastructure gets reworked to deal with the changes completely, instead of bothering with releases that do just enough of the transition to not break this to badly(for example XInput 1.5 vs 2.0)

In the case of fglrx, I have some right to complain, as I have paid for the hardware (even if my pet OS isn't officially supported)

In the case of X, I am not so sure to whom I have the "right" to complain. Still, stability, performance, and features are also on my wishlist.

The "X-men" need support, not complaints.

[fabiank22]

Yes, we can read frustrated chief editors claiming "nothing exiting this month" etc. But, so what. They release. And they release smaller and gradual improvements more often, and, larger and more involving changes as well, but less often. Like it is expected to be.

This makes NO sense. Sorry, but X.org, whether you take only the X-Server or X.org, is at a point where the main thing people complain about is missing features/unstable performance.

Let's try this from another viewpoint: What is your reason for upgrading to X-Server 1.7? Stability? Really? What got people excited was the possibilities of Multi-Pointer-X, and even that didn't make it completely.

I don't really get upgrading for upgradings sake. Bug-fix-releases are still happening, as 1.7.x. There is NO need to bump version-numbers and Apis without having anything interesting to show for.

Seeing how the X-Server has been growing for a few years, there's always a lot of old code involved when something like XInput or pciaccess gets reworked, so I personally would love it if they would wait with their releases till all the infrastructure gets reworked to deal with the changes completely, instead of bothering with releases that do just enough of the transition to not break this to badly(for example XInput 1.5 vs 2.0)

[sabriah]

[...] you seem to be more forgiving on AMD/ATi developers for not delivering features in time for releases than X.org. Why's that?

Because I have worked as a developer and I know hard it can be to deliver...

Guess why I don't work as one any longer.

I do still code, but not for someone else.

[nanonyme]

No, it isn't impossible in practice. The fglrx drivers of AMDT/ATI for the Radeon cards have released like this for about two years now, with monthly releases.

You mean with these bug-free and well-tested monthly releases that no one ever complains about?
Seriously though, we all know that's a moronic example. People have to resort to betas of future versions because monthly releases just don't suffice. Sure, if everyone used X.org as git snapshots too, we wouldn't have all this hassle with versions. But as it is, you seem to be more forgiving on AMD/ATi developers for not delivering features in time for releases than X.org. Why's that?