Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions pageSponsored link
Serve your customers, not your servers, with VERIO Linux VPS. Full-access test-drive here.
| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Fedora 9 Release date slipping by two weeks
| From: | Jesse Keating <jkeating-AT-redhat.com> | |
| To: | fedora-devel-announce-AT-redhat.com, fedora-announce-list-AT-redhat.com | |
| Subject: | Fedora 9 Release date slipping by two weeks (new date, May 13) | |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:28:28 -0400 | |
| Message-ID: | <1208464108.3235.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
At today's regularly scheduled meeting, the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo) decided that Fedora 9 release will be slipping by exactly two weeks. Because of other slippage, coupled with some technical difficulties during this previous week, our Preview Release was unexpectedly stalled. The Preview Release is where we expect to catch all manner of last-minute bugs, do very heavy QA, and otherwise perform all the final spit-and-polish. There needs to be sufficient time between the PR and the release for testers to find and report issues. There are less than two weeks remaining until the original target date of April 29th. About a week before that date we have to have everything locked and loaded for distribution by our mirrors. That small a timeframe would then make the Preview Release -- normally a very important part of our release schedule -- nearly useless. This slip is not intended to make room for more changes, it is only intended to make room for fixing the things we already know about, and allowing new things to be found, and evaluated as release blocking, and fixed. There are also a fair number of bugs we think we've already fixed, but need wider audience testing to be sure. The current blocker list is viewable at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=235... however since there is nothing preventing people from adding bugs to this list it will get culled from time to time from things that aren't actually blockers. A (rather longer) list of things we'd like to see fixes for can be seen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=235... although this list does get less attention than the blocker list. We deeply appreciate the value we get from our community in using our development tree and testing our release attempts. Without your input, our releases couldn't possibly be as good as they have been. Please help us use these extra couple of weeks to make the already awesome Fedora 9 even better! -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? -- fedora-announce-list mailing list fedora-announce-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-announce-list
(Log in to post comments)
actually very impressive
Posted Apr 17, 2008 23:59 UTC (Thu) by tpo (subscriber, #25713) [Link]
Comparing two weeks to things I did and places I worked at I think a two week delay is very impressive. Linux has come a long long way if a two week splip of some distro is worth a mention in the news. Whee, go Fedora :-)!
actually very impressive
Posted Apr 18, 2008 1:55 UTC (Fri) by jhs (subscriber, #12429) [Link]
Yes, I was just going to say exactly the same thing. It's so awesome that a two week slip is newsworthy when you have other operating systems slipping years and slashing features.
actually very impressive
Posted Apr 18, 2008 2:15 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]
Release time is a judgement call. I've been bitten enough times by brain-dead bugs (like gdm only supporting 16 sessions no matter what you change in the config files in F8) that I'm waiting until at least 4 months after release to deploy anywhere other than my own personal desktop. Don't get me wrong; I like Fedora or I wouldn't be deploying it at all. But if it's been delayed by 2 weeks, you can bet that it needs some real work. I sincerely wish that there was a RedHat-related distro with a 1 year release cycle. Something between the stodginess of RHEL/CentOS and the "eat your brane" of Fedora. It would be perfect for my professional needs.
actually very impressive
Posted Apr 18, 2008 6:40 UTC (Fri) by DG (subscriber, #16978) [Link]
Well, it could always be like Gutsy where a bug in gdm means XDMCP doesn't work. At least it sounds like you get 16 sessions!
actually very impressive
Posted Apr 18, 2008 17:55 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]
I'm not familiar with that incident. But I'll bet they did not leave it that way for 5 months (and counting). Fedora 8 was released with the gdm problem and still has it to this day.
actually very impressive
Posted Apr 20, 2008 7:16 UTC (Sun) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
Unfortunately I believe the XDMCP problem is still in Feisty and Gutsy (i.e. the one where GDM listens only on udp6 socket, not on IPv4, so XDMCP doesn't work at all). I really like Ubuntu and use it as my main OS on a couple of systems, but there's a tendency for some quite serious bugs to not get fixed - probably because they are focusing on bugs that really stop mainstream desktop users from adopting Ubunutu, but can be annoying. However, unfixed bugs are generally the exception, and every release does improve on earlier ones.
actually very impressive
Posted Apr 20, 2008 19:26 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]
""" Unfortunately I believe the XDMCP problem is still in Feisty and Gutsy (i.e. the one where GDM listens only on udp6 socket, not on IPv4, so XDMCP doesn't work at all). """ No. It works fine in both current Gutsy and Hardy. I have no Feisty with which to test. Fedora's is still broken in F8. Haven't tested F9. What is particularly irritating about that is that it is not the sort of bug which only occurs on specific hardware and is hard for the devs to reproduce. Someone rewrote a major part of gdm and forgot to have it read in values from the config files. Any dev who cared enough could quite easily fire up some XDMCP vnc sessions and reproduce the problem. Though I'm sure that if I complained too much, someone would tell me that the devs can't fix it unless I help them more. In fact, the bug I filed is still sitting as "unconfirmed" and "need more info". With that kind of developer attitude to such a serious problem I prefer not to waste my time spoon feeding them "more info" regarding a trivially reproduceable snafu that I have already hard coded and recompiled around for my customers bitten by it. And the upstream bug report has not done any better than the Fedora one. So all this "actually very impressive" stuff regarding the 2 week slip does not really impress me at all.
Fedora 9 Release date slipping by two weeks
Posted Apr 18, 2008 1:04 UTC (Fri) by lax (guest, #51587) [Link]
I have found in Fedora Rawhide a WOW! felling. May a delay give it new chance to do the best.
Fedora 9 Release date slipping by two weeks
Posted Apr 18, 2008 2:43 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]
The first sentence of the parent post should be made into a T-shirt as soon as possible (modulus the speling of course.) :)
Fedora 9 Release date slipping by two weeks
Posted Apr 18, 2008 14:36 UTC (Fri) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link]
You can even make it shorter, e.g.: Fedora Rawhide: Find your WOW! or Find your WOW! feeling Fedora Rawhide
Fedora 9 Release date slipping by two weeks
Posted Apr 18, 2008 15:08 UTC (Fri) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link]
Fedora Rawhide: Find your WOW!
or
Find your WOW! feeling
Fedora Rawhide
Or perhaps
Where's the WOW?
Fefora Rawhide
Fedora 9 Release date slipping by two weeks
Posted Apr 18, 2008 17:16 UTC (Fri) by geek (subscriber, #45074) [Link]
hmmmmmm..... Fefora rules!!