Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora Might Try A New Scheduling Strategy For Its Releases

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fedora Might Try A New Scheduling Strategy For Its Releases

    Phoronix: Fedora Might Try A New Scheduling Strategy For Its Releases

    It's no secret that Fedora has had a challenging time sticking to their release schedules for a long time. With taking care of blocker bugs, Fedora Linux releases tend to frequently slip -- with Fedora 21 it's about two months behind schedule and we're just past the alpha stage. By the time Fedora 21 actually ships, Fedora 20 will have been at least twelve months old. However, a new release scheduling strategy might be tried starting with Fedora 22...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTgwMTA

  • #2
    Well here is the thing... the only person on the whole PLANET who seems to care about how fast it comes out.... is YOU.

    If it were RHEL being massively delayed, that would be a different story, but its not like F20 is particularly long of tooth. Its better to release it when its ready than to force it out on a schedule.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think it would be better if Fedora have just one release per year. In this way the releases should have better quality and there is no reason to have 2 versions a year, because Fedora already updates kernel versions, bringing support for new hardware in the same release.
      It would help 3rd party developers to support Fedora, like happens with Ubuntu LTS.

      Comment


      • #4
        meh.

        they should eithr do rolling or use an 9 month like opensuse Schdule {3 releases every 2 years instead of 4}. or maybe 1 / y like stated above

        Comment


        • #5
          Just do rolling release already...

          Comment


          • #6
            +1, do it rolling or you dont have a single change in this territory

            Archlinux for life now.. before it was Fedora

            Comment


            • #7
              I can't see how this helps. If they can't stick to their release dates under the current scheme, why would that be any different with the new scheme?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                I can't see how this helps. If they can't stick to their release dates under the current scheme, why would that be any different with the new scheme?
                +1

                The problem was not the release schedule. The problem is not sticking to it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                  I can't see how this helps. If they can't stick to their release dates under the current scheme, why would that be any different with the new scheme?
                  Reading the ongoing discussions in the ticket would have helped to answer that but the summary of it is that if one release gets delayed, the other release would get intentionally shortened (less features, more bug fix focused) and therefore atleast every other release would bring it back to roughly the same cycle.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                    Reading the ongoing discussions in the ticket would have helped to answer that but the summary of it is that if one release gets delayed, the other release would get intentionally shortened (less features, more bug fix focused) and therefore atleast every other release would bring it back to roughly the same cycle.
                    I get that, I just don't understand why it's expected to work. If delayed releases was an occasional thing, it would be a reasonable way of correcting for one that overran the target date - but it's not an occasional thing. Fedora releases are *always* delayed, and this doesn't seem to address the causes of the delays.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X