On 27 Jan 2013, at 23:55, Philip Rhoades <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > People, > > >> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:18:40 -0500 >> From: "Eddie G. O'Connor Jr." <eoconnor25@xxxxxxxxx> >> To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: humble suggestion to Fedora developers >> Message-ID: <51058BA0.8020509@xxxxxxxxx> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >> On 01/23/2013 02:59 PM, James Freer wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff <joe@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>>>> because first new anaconda was approved and integration >>>>> all over the distribution started and after that damage >>>>> was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready" >>>> So what you're saying is, it was approved before it was ready. Judging from >>>> what else you wrote, the devs didn't realize it when they approved it. This >>>> suggests to me that approval came too early in the process, before proper >>>> testing was done and that important parts of the program hadn't been >>>> completed. If so, is there anything that can be done to prevent this from >>>> happening yet again? >>> I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in >>> considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release >>> cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with >>> Ubuntu and Fedora. Some distros use a two year release which is too >>> long. One or two use an annual release which i think is about right... >>> development and testing can fully take place. Why not consider an >>> annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take >>> place? >>> james >> I would have to agree with you James, it might not be a bad idea for >> them to stretch their release time out a bit? I would have positives >> from all sides. First,....the developers would be able to REALLY put >> their apps and what-not through a GRUELING testing session, this >> way...when they say it works.....IT WORKS! Second,.....the public >> wouldn't find themselves scurrying to acquire the latest version, and >> slamming it onto their machines without knowing that things won't crash >> & burn un-necessarily......also it would give the public time to "adapt" >> and become comfortable with the latest release, instead of going into >> shock at the arrival of a new desktop environment...or new feature-sets >> that were not there before. I guess it's just a matter of someone (or a >> LOT of someone's) voicing their opinion loud enough to be heard by the >> higher-ups? I don't know that they would actually change things around >> like that....(it would be NICE!) but eventually they might get restless >> enough to completely flip thing around and have longer time frames >> between releases. > > > Maybe we should try out, say, a nine month cycle and if it doesn't suit - go back to six months? I am conscious though of the human tendency to put off things when there is more time to get them done . . > > Regards, > > Phil. > -- I think if nine months was tried then the interim period should be renamed a gestation. I'd also like to add to the pile of anecdotal evidence that my systems been stable since upgrading to F18. There were some hiccups with evolution but that was more to do with my self-signed server certs than anything. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
