Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th May 2008 18:40 UTC
Back in April 2008, Canonical's Mark Shuttleworth pitched the idea of major open source projects synchronising their release cycles on a 6 month period. Projects like gcc, the Linux kernel, GNOME, KDE, as well as the distributions, would work out an acceptable release schedule. It would allow for easier collaboration between the various projects, and hardware vendors would be better able to support Linux since all major distributions would ship with the same kernel version.
Thread beginning with comment 314929
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: red hat and novell don't wait
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th May 2008 13:45
in reply to "RE[5]: red hat and novell don't wait"
Member since:2005-06-29
Ubuntu's timetable is practically the same as Gnome's timetable, its not something they pulled our of their ass. So what he is suggesting is that All projects adhere to a set timetable and release cycle that a major OS project already uses and that many projects revolving around it use as well. Its a sound idea, but because it was suggested by the Ubuntu community its not valid.
This is not entirely true. MArk isn't suggesting that everyone adapts to Ubuntu's/GNOME's schedule. In fact, he clearly stated Ubuntu is willing to change its release cycle if needed.
RE[7]: red hat and novell don't wait
by Rahul on Tue 20th May 2008 14:29
in reply to "RE[6]: red hat and novell don't wait"
Member since:2005-07-06
Change the release cycle to match conflicting upstream release schedules and distribution release schedules doesn't really work. Enterprise releases are only put out every 2 years or so. I doubt he isn't willing to only release to match that. The GNOME release schedule originated from the Red Hat Linux release schedule
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/TimeBased
Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Mandrive release schedules already match to a good extend in a organic way. Upstream projects already do accomodate these releases.
RE[7]: red hat and novell don't wait
by segedunum on Tue 20th May 2008 17:41
in reply to "RE[6]: red hat and novell don't wait"
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[6]: red hat and novell don't wait
by segedunum on Tue 20th May 2008 17:40
in reply to "RE[5]: red hat and novell don't wait"
Member since:2005-07-06
Ubuntu's timetable is practically the same as Gnome's timetable, its not something they pulled our of their ass.
Same difference. Whether it's Ubuntu's or Gnome's timetable it doesn't solve the problems.
So what he is suggesting is that All projects adhere to a set timetable and release cycle that a major OS project already uses and that many projects revolving around it use as well.
All projects have their own goals for each release, and as Aaron pointed out, for projects who have a timetable of major structural changes and want to get more far-reaching features implemented, which happens from time to time, a six month release cycle is an total ass.
I say regular less feature centric releases would be a benefit to KDE, but Aaron thinks otherwise and is willing to be an ass to support his opinion.
Aaron is spot on to be sceptical about strict time based releases. Quite often, and Gnome has suffered terribly from this, major features and changes that should be made are continuously put on the backburner for future releases because the next release just comes up far too fast. Just because you can make a release, it doesn't mean that there's anything actually in it. From that we get the suggestion of better branching so that features can be backported more easily. It's all in the articles.
KDE does have time-based releases actually, but they're not willing to be strict about them because open source development just isn't like that.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-02-17
Ubuntu's timetable is practically the same as Gnome's timetable, its not something they pulled our of their ass. So what he is suggesting is that All projects adhere to a set timetable and release cycle that a major OS project already uses and that many projects revolving around it use as well. Its a sound idea, but because it was suggested by the Ubuntu community its not valid. As a community we contribute a lot to the linux landscape, even if Canonical as a company may not. The huge user base of ubuntu has spawned many oss projects that are built and maintained on Ubuntu, but because some of these projects aren't huge upstream projects they get overlooked and Ubuntu doesn't contribute?
Aaron has no intention of making the KDE project use a steady release cycle, he has stated as much before, when Mark suggested the same thing for KDE a while back. I say regular less feature centric releases would be a benefit to KDE, but Aaron thinks otherwise and is willing to be an ass to support his opinion.
Ubuntu may not have a lot of upstream developers, but like I've stated many times on this site. Ubuntu's popularity doesn't translate to money, they are popular, but unlike RedHat or Novell, they have very little resources that are not coming out of the pocket of one man. So its nice for Aaron to say that Ubuntu should contribute more upstream, but the reality is that Ubuntu doesn't have the resources to do such a thing.
What makes Ubuntu great, is the fact that in just the few short years that they have been making releases, they have changed the landscape of consumer oriented(desktop) Linux. Anyone who denies that is lying to themselves. They must have contributed something to make such a huge impact in so little time. It's not about what they contribute but how. Many projects that started on other distros were fostered and nurtured by the huge Ubuntu community. Ubuntu contributes by increasing adoption rate and awareness of Linux, that should be more than enough, imo.