On Tuesday 16 December 2008 05:01:32 pm Kevin Dupuy wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 20:03 +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Actually many complained that 11.1 had a too short release cycle - so they did not really start testing because they hardly finished their 11.0 polishing and I guess that's right for many. And if you go with a may release with many developers having prolonged christmas holidays and ask for an extended RC phase to stabilize and translate, this gives very little time over a kernel and a gcc update. Does pretty hard to sell to users to me.
I agree with them. I tend to prefer longer release times, particularly from a testing (some people like to use their shiny new release before they go bug hunting in the next one ;-)), and from a marketing perspective (2 to 3 releases a year, every year gets tedious to manage, and overwhelms users).
I think the current openSUSE schedule (which has been described to me as "3 releases over a period of two years", is that about right?) is a good pace.
I tend to agree with Coolo. It is getting hard to follow 6 months release cycle. I barely had time to see 11.0 and it is already candidate for deletion.
One year with plan what subsystem can be changed and tested in Alphas, so that we have Betas that can attract more people to start testing. Changes on boot loader, kernel, packaging should not wait until Beta. It will give more time for fine tuning.
I guess that I'm average enough, to say that majority use one (latest) computer for all their needs, so they avoid to touch releases with major subsystem broken, specially bugs that can make problems with existing installation. That kind of breakage should be solved in Alphas, if possible.