Sunday, April 27. 2008
Amarok Resolved
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Oh, yeah, very funny, I'm moving to Gnome right now! RPM or source compilation - never again!
Seriously, get a grip! It was NOT posted twice - it was AGREGATED twice!
Hah, I get it now. I thought you were off your rocker but then I read the post you were replying to.
I don't understand the resistance to the idea of syncing release schedules.
Yeah, it doesn't necessarily make sense for every project and every distribution. Some projects/distributions may have 3 or 4 releases in 6 months, so it wouldn't really make sense the lengthen their release cycle to be in sync with some grander scheme.
For many projects, if Fedora and Ubuntu already release in a similar time frame, it doesn't seem all that out of line for projects to choose release dates that fall 1 to 3 months before to allow time for testing and bug fixing.
If a project releases every 6 months and reliably comes close to hitting their release dates, a release could probably be done closer the the actual release date of these distributions.
If a project follows a 12 or 18 month release cycle, depending on past history, there may be arguments that it's release should come 4 to 5 months before the time frame the distributions will be released.
On the other hand, if a distribution releases every six months, that seems plenty often to not really be all that concerned about having a synchronized release with any other distribution or project. With the one possible exception being, if there could be some extra group effort during some scheduled time frame every 3 years or so to pool resources across distributions and projects for a synchronized release schedule revolving around the Long Term Support releases from various distributions. That seems to me it would be much more benefit that the 6 month pulse idea.
Later, Seeker
Yeah, it doesn't necessarily make sense for every project and every distribution. Some projects/distributions may have 3 or 4 releases in 6 months, so it wouldn't really make sense the lengthen their release cycle to be in sync with some grander scheme.
For many projects, if Fedora and Ubuntu already release in a similar time frame, it doesn't seem all that out of line for projects to choose release dates that fall 1 to 3 months before to allow time for testing and bug fixing.
If a project releases every 6 months and reliably comes close to hitting their release dates, a release could probably be done closer the the actual release date of these distributions.
If a project follows a 12 or 18 month release cycle, depending on past history, there may be arguments that it's release should come 4 to 5 months before the time frame the distributions will be released.
On the other hand, if a distribution releases every six months, that seems plenty often to not really be all that concerned about having a synchronized release with any other distribution or project. With the one possible exception being, if there could be some extra group effort during some scheduled time frame every 3 years or so to pool resources across distributions and projects for a synchronized release schedule revolving around the Long Term Support releases from various distributions. That seems to me it would be much more benefit that the 6 month pulse idea.
Later, Seeker
Amarok Links
Calendar
Quicksearch
Archives
Categories
Syndicate This Blog
Blog Administration
We Listen To...
Powered by
