On Mit, 2013-09-25 at 15:01 -0400, Robert Schweikert wrote:
For the second part of this paragraph I think it will be important to here from teams like the GNOME and KDE teams that determine major "features". Kernel and tool chain developers should also chime in. While I am not intimately familiar with all the things that go on in this area I have a feeling it is a lot less planned and more organic than the proposed paragraph makes it sound.
Let me try to answer that in the name of the GNOME Team: What we usually do (and also did for 13.1) is to take coolo's 'schedule', match this up with GNOME's schedule (which is luckily rather reliable and strict, incl. the beta's and RCs). Then we try to squeeze and bump as needed to make things work. But,for example for 13.1, it was known very early that we are 'aiming' at 3.10; in 12.3 we had the goal 3.6; we had to 'skip' 3.8 due to mis-aligned release dates between the two projects. For the GNOME Team this is absolutely crucial information, as we need to know EARLY if we should start checking in 3.<odd> numbers or now. We are not willing to ship any unstable in the final release... so, for one part, we do 'plan' the version... but certainly much less the features (those are planned by GNOME Upstream, where we have some 'say' as well, but as in most projects: who does, wins).
As mentioned previously this second part of the paragraph just makes it sound we work off a predetermined list for "features", i.e. versions of upstream projects. It is my perception that this is not the case. I think packages just evolve throughout the release cycle and when we reach the various feature freeze point we end up with what happens to be in factory. I don't think anyone can tell at the beginning of the cycle whether we'll end up with kernel 3.12, 3.13, or other. It all depends on upstream releases, while for some parts are reasonably regular but still subject to fluctuation, and the time available for packagers to catch up to the upstream releases. For example if we would ship 13.1 with GNOME 3.8 instead of GNOME 3.10 I don't think there would be anyone able to point to any document/e-mail/FATE reference and say "but you promised GNOME 3.10." In the end "things just happen", at least that is my perception of the "process". But others that maintain larger parts of the distribution need to chime in.
Well, we do 'try' to maintain a GOALS page for the various versions of openSUSE; for 13.1 for example: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Goals_13.1 But, you are right: there is no strict 'adherence' to this list (like, we for sure did not get rid of GStreamer 0.10) Other things catch us a bit more by surprise (like the bluetooth 5 stack requirements; and what all around this needs to be done.. we're still working on that!) Cheers, Dominique -- Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger <dimstar@opensuse.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org