Fedora 20 Has Been Delayed Yet Again

[Delgarde]

But they don't. They delay the release because of bugs, which means that a feature is not working as it should, it is not ready.

It doesn't mean anything of the sort. A feature being "not ready" means it's either functionally incomplete, or has so many obvious bugs as to be clear that it's not usable, and if that's the case, the feature just doesn't make it into that release. Bugs that delay releases are the ones found once the release starts getting more thorough testing - and often, aren't new features at all, but old ones that have broken as a result of having dependencies upgraded...

[RahulSundaram]

But they don't. They delay the release because of bugs, which means that a feature is not working as it should, it is not ready.

No. If a feature is not ready at all, it will be dropped usually. If you look at the blocker bugs, they are almost entirely just bugs in the installer from changes in the underlying system that needs to be fixed. Anything that can be fixed post-release as updates will usually not be considered blocker bugs at all.

[Vim_User]

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.

But they don't. They delay the release because of bugs, which means that a feature is not working as it should, it is not ready.

[Delgarde]

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.

[RahulSundaram]

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/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle#Development_Schedule_Rationale

[Vim_User]

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, ... ?

[Delgarde]

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...

[RahulSundaram]

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.

[Vim_User]

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.

[Delgarde]

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..