On 02/09/2012 11:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any Fedora release which worked for me out of the box ...
...
That said, IMO, on the technical side, Fedora urgently needs a "calming down/lean back/settlement phase", say 2 consecutive Fedora releases without "revolutionary features" being introduced, to revisit re-evaluate, revert/complete "old revolutionary features".
To me, Fedora is the Linux R&D lab, and the releases are designed to introduce new features. Still, you have a point about the worrying number of defects (I am personally affected by one of those: my X is misbehaving now, with terrible latency and update performance)---but I think we need to adjust the process rather than make strategic retreats.
Specifically, in my opinion the major developments should be planned and announced in a more organized way:
- they are first proposed, discussed, adopted and announced in the timeframe of 1 or 2 releases before the release they go in.
- they are introduced, on schedule and as a matter of process, into rawhide at the start of the cycle, rather than midstream or late.
There are of course difficulties with this approach: first, it could slow down the development just because it adds steps to the process.
Perhaps more importantly, many important improvements are driven by small groups or individuals (Lennart's systemd, and even usrmove) and this process would open the discussion much wider and earlier; there would likely be more opposition. The FESCO would have to pitch in and stand behind the project and its lonely champion after adopting it.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
