On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 12:18 +0100, Dirk Müller wrote:
On Monday 15 December 2008, JP Rosevear wrote:
I agree, I think its odd to make a lengthy 10 month schedule and then not add on 2-4 weeks to grab the final version of GNOME.
final version? GNOME finally ceases to exist? ;)
I don't see the point, there will always be yet-another-release of major software that we'll miss.
The point is that the original schedule proposal specifically called out wanting to include KDE 4.3 (and OpenOffice - but that was incorrect schedule wise, however with a september release its also back into play) and specifically rejected a release date because of it. So major releases seem to be driving the schedule proposal for now.
I do agree we should shoot for 4.3 if possible as well as KDE 3.5 will be dropped out of the next release and jumping as far ahead as possible to close the feature gap is necessary.
It would make more sense to spend time on incremental improvements of the platform and not sync schedules with the latest desktop gimmick that only 50% of the users use (be it KDE or GNOME or ..). Furthermore those parts are exchangeable, one click and you have a buildservice repository that always ships the latest shiniest KDE.
I think the KDE buildservice is great for testing. I don't think the build service is used by a majority of desktop users though.
I don't understand why a shorter release cycle was dismissed, there was no reason given? How about a release in ~ May, which includes kernel 2.6.28 and gcc 4.4, and then a release around October/November for 11.3? These plans have synergy effects: we can make use of a stable 2.6.28 kernel already for other products, and we can make use of the testing of an intermediate 11.2 release to make sure that 11.3 is stable enough to become synced with the Enterprise Desktop SP1.
Sure - this is why I also suggested we discuss more than just 11.2 at this time.
The openSUSE Build Service good infrastructure to provide the latest desktop to the user. It does not provide good infrastructure to ship the latest kernel/X.org/compiler, because those are not really leaf packages like the desktop is.
Or does the openSUSE GNOME team really prefer to skip a completeGNOME release because 11.2 would only be released autumn next year? And why does the
I don't understand what you are saying here - GNOME would be updated to 2.26 for 11.2 if 2.28 was not feasible.
opinion of the GNOME team matter on the release cycle of a linux distribution?
The downstream openSUSE GNOME team's opinion should matter I hope as part of the community.
Shouldn't we make sure that we ship a newer platform in time so that the desktops can make use of platform features and test and prepare that in the community, offloading all the "the stuff does not compile/work anymore" to the development community?
And what are we doing when the other distros ship their spring release?
Yes, see above, starting to plan more than one release at a time (from a schedule perspective) would be helpful imho.