On 11/26/2009 02:12 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 02:01:00PM +0000, Terry Barnaby wrote:
another set of problems. The new release speed also uses a lot of
developer and user time in just managing to create a new release and
updating systems to use it.
This is the key flaw in your suggestion. Fedora developer effort isn't as
malleable as you seem to think -- managing a new release is very different
from fixing graphics bugs, and even if everyone involved in a different
aspect of the project _wanted_ to switch to graphics driver programming
_and_ was qualified to do so _and_ was able to get up to speed in a
reasonable time, you can't necessarily solve programming problems faster by
multiplying the number of developers.
That is true, but a major amount of work in getting a release out must
be testing it. Those Fedora people involved in the testing, which are also
user-testers, have their own systems with there own hardware and are
fully conversant with delving into bugs and reporting them in the correct way.
On the other hand, having a release which emphasizes stability over new
features is an idea that's been around for a while. It may be a good idea
occasionally, but one of the problems you get is that new development in
general doesn't stop and wait for stabilization, so the _next_ release,
where you open things up again, ends up extra-unstable as all that new stuff
hits at once.
No things don't stop and they shouldn't. But at least it gives a reference
platform to assist with future developments and bug fixing and also a
stable release that people can recommend. I am unable to recommend F9, F10, F11,
or F12 ...
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
