[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion

[Ron]

>There is a limited set of options, and as you can see, none of your >idea was not already explored by someone else.
It has all been done before, in that sense let's just close up shop and call it a day???
>If everything move all days, you cannot :
>- translate software ( as the string will change every day )
>- create documentation ( for the same reason )
>- communicate ( as everything ca be broken at any time )
>- ensure stability ( as each change can bring unstability )

>And for user, some do not want to redo training every week for >their
>users, because libreoffice got updated, because ff 4 just arrived >and
>75% of extensions do not work, etc. 
>
>In fact, the whole release model is basically what is used all >over the
>place, from lower level like kernel to higher level like kde. So >you can
>get lots of feedback on it.
You are correct on the release model being used everywhere, that fit's development and really there is no other way to do it as it takes time. But really, up stream does have to take time but package maintainers can pull things in pretty fast and make things work.
I don't understand what's being said here? Are we a community of users or are we just teachers teaching a class? Help with changes is what forums and people are for. 
You worried about not being able to keep up with documentation? I suggest you take a look at the Arch wiki, best Linux wiki there is and things change fast... Again, community...
>So basically, you suggest that since everybody is already doing >it, this is useless. So the logical conclusion is we should drop >the distribution ?
No that is not what I'm saying! 
What I am saying is that you have 100+/- distributions all going by a release model and only a handful making rolling releases. There is only one defacto maker of a rolling release and that is Arch, why does this have to be? (Yes I know there are others but Arch is the leader of the pack)
>We have the same thing, this is the strength of free software. We
>basically all work together.
It truly is redundant to do what everyone else is doing just because....
>like cauldron ? or debian unstable, fedora rawhide, opensuse >factory,mandriva cooker ?
Sure, there has to be an unstable branch whether rolling or not...
>like debian testing ( and CUT ) ? suse tumbleweed ? arch linux
Nope, gotta call you on this... Debian testing rolls with the purpose of becoming a release... Therefore things can grow outdated rather quickly. 
Suse tumblweed IS NOT going to be a true rolling release! It is going to "tumble up" to the next release hence the name.
This cannot be compared to Arch either as Arch has a set of rules as well and rolls into stable...
>Very stable for a distribution mean "that do not change". That's
>incompatible with the idea of rolling per definition. And inorder >to have stable software, you have to freeze them and fix bugs. So >to have that on the whole distribution, you need to freeze the >whole distribution for a time, and then ask for test, fix bugs >and then release. Which is exactly what we currently do since >years.
Sorry, your wrong! I have been using Arch for years and have yet to meet a show stopper bug, it is very stable. 
Stability simply means tested! It does not have to be like Debian testing that grows stale with time, you can remain very very close to bleeding edge and still remain stable...
>So basically, you just reinvented the concept of release, and the >way Mandriva, Debian, Fedora work since years. 
And I must have peed in your cheerios... I am all for giving people what they want, I also don't think you have to follow the status quo to do so... We don't have to be "just another distribution doing the same things the others are doing"... Sorry, but this is what I see....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/mageia-dev/attachments/20110613/b1599667/attachment.html>