Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Jun 2008 11:34 UTC, submitted by matej
The open source world is currently debating the merits - if any - of synchronising the release schedules of several of the bigger, key projects that make up a Linux distribution. The discussion was started by Canonical's Mark Shuttleworth, and continued as a back and forth between the Ubuntu leader and KDE's Aaron Seigo, but of course other members of the community discussed right along on blogs and other venues. Sander, developer of Coccinella (an open-source Jabber client) provides some insights into the whole discussion.
Permalink for comment 320675
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Suppose one project is unquestionably ready on the date, and the other project is not, for example of the issues Fedora 9 has with KDE 4. Should Fedora have delayed however long it took for KDE 4.1 to be ready? or should KDE 4.1 have been "given" more resources by Mr. Shuttleworth (or someone at the Fedora project) in order to meet Fedora's deadline? What would serious coordination mean in this world?
So this strikes me as a really bad idea. Maybe this is not what he is getting at, but artificial deadlines seem to be part of the problem with Windows; some wit on this website remarked a while back that at the time Vista was released, all of its promised major features was present in each major OS except Vista. Having rollouts may be fun and enjoyable and leave everyone with good feelings for a week or so, but in the long run the current model is much, much better.