[Mageia-dev] How will be the realese cycle?

[Romain d'Alverny]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 13:27, Samuel Verschelde <stormi at laposte.net> wrote:
>
> Le jeudi 7 octobre 2010 12:10:11, Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
>>
>> You describe quite what Kiosk was designed for (and what most App
>> Store are nowadays anyway).
>>
>> > OK, buchan, how do we start ? Shall we put improvements proposals
>> > (UI, website, ...) on the wiki, on http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=rollingdebate ?
>>
>> No, these are two different things. Above wiki page is for stating a
>> perceived problem, and detailing what people view should be (or not
>> be) done.
>>
>> Stating the need for, and specifying/scratching a web-based (or
>> semi-web-based) UI for a socially augmented software library is
>> another thing.
>
> Well, it's different, but to me part of the debate on the release cycle. As Buchan
> stated, better perception of backports by users could bring the benefits that
> some people see in a rolling release. Plus, I'm not only talking about web-based
> UI, but also rpmdrake improvements regarding backports.

Well, rpmdrake is a software library UI. Be it Web-based or not,
that's another issue.

I totally agree that the library contents and possibilities perception has to be
improved. At least that we need to clarify/simplify/change how
existing/new software
and updates/upgrades are presented to the user.

Maybe shifting from a strictly system-related point of view (current
rpmdrake UI)
to a more application/task/user-related one. Or maybe it's a deeper issue than
just presentation/UI (like really handling differently how software
gets integrated
and packaged on/above/within the operating system).

But I just don't know. And I believe we're several in this case.

It is just not clear at all that this discussion about "rolling" distro,
backports, etc. is directly linked to that.

So the above linked wiki page is about stating and nailing down the problem
several people here seem to agree there is:
 - first, make sure everyone speak about the same thing; so everyone should
   state her own point of view, detailed;
 - second, work this refined problem in depth, so that we see what is really
   the problem, and not only the symptoms;
 - third, once the problem is clearly stated, the solution(s) may be more
   obvious to see/discute/define.

Note that at this current stage of discussion, it may as well be that there are
_several_ issues mixed as one. So we could as well split the problem into
relevant parts.

> However, if you think we shouldn't put an entry saying "no rolling release,
> but improve current backports scheme, see proposal below", I won't do it.

You can too. But then let's make sure this is related to the discussion (it may,
I am not sure) and then, let's define the bigger picture that links all this
together (would need a separate section in the wiki page then, or yet another
page to state the big view of the issue).


Romain