| |||||||||||||
Contingency plans?Contingency plans?Posted Nov 9, 2012 7:28 UTC (Fri) by hadess (subscriber, #24252)Parent article: Fedora 18 now scheduled for January 2013 How did Anaconda get away with not having a decent contingency plan for their NewUI feature? How did FESCo get that so wrong? It's not very often, but I agree with Christopher Wickert but the links pointing to problems in the planning for the Anaconda features show that either the planning process is broken, or it wasn't respected. The meeting logs make me think the latter. There's plenty of people I respect on FESCo, but I don't trust it as a body, or think it has any authority any more.
(Log in to post comments)
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 9, 2012 10:00 UTC (Fri) by AnandC (guest, #87752) [Link]
This is really sad. Not only they pushed a feature into F18 but they consistently kept pushing the release date instead of pushing this feature to F19 altogether just because RHEL 7 would be based on F18 and they badly want the new installer.
A distro with 24 week release cycle is 10 weeks late for a few features that could be moved to the next one.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 9, 2012 10:28 UTC (Fri) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
> How did Anaconda get away with not having a decent contingency plan for their NewUI feature? How did FESCo get that so wrong?
By being naive. The anaconda people told FESCo that it is "impossible" and "insane" to go back to the working anaconda and they just believed that. It might have required some work to make it run on F18 but I didn't buy the "it would take more work then finishing the new UI" at the meeting where this has been discussed and I am still not buying that.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 9, 2012 11:12 UTC (Fri) by cyperpunks (subscriber, #39406) [Link]
I think the real issue is the very short release cycle.
It would be much better with 9 months between releases.
That will also give every release a lifetime of 20 months.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 9, 2012 11:17 UTC (Fri) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
Not really ... it worked fine for 16 releases (we had a nine month cycle for one release). In F18 FESCo screwed up. We should make sure this wont happen again ... changing the whole process is not really needed.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 10, 2012 1:51 UTC (Sat) by AnandC (guest, #87752) [Link]
+1
I been an avid user of Fedora since the beginning and 6 month release cycle is just perfect. If Anaconda or any other unready features were moved to F19, this wouldn't be such a mess.
F18 already has plenty other kick ass features.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 10, 2012 2:44 UTC (Sat) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126) [Link]
Fedora is good as it is now. It would be great if it was rolling release. Lot of components are already rolling. Moving to 9 months lazy schedule and having 20 months schedule is too much maintainence work and too little gain. people who use fedora use it for the cool new features. When a new release is made they switch over and just almost forget the F -1.
Rolling release will prevent the other major packages being held up.The current release model just holds off the new features when one of the un-related components is not ready. Gnome 3.6 would have been available even at the end of september. With the current release schedule Fedora is not bieng 'first' in recent times. Arch Linux beats Fedora all the time with software upgrades. The transition is smoother in Arch linux. Arch linux users do have the trouble of manual intervention once in a while, but that's ok, when you have the information put up on the main website about how to tackle it.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 10, 2012 4:49 UTC (Sat) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] Fedora already has a rolling release. It's called rawhide. If you don't like time-based releases, use rawhide. Don't try to take away time-based releases from those of us that want them.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 10, 2012 5:05 UTC (Sat) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126) [Link]
But rawhide is just unusable. Its broken 95% of the times. My point is fedora cannot be "first" if it continue to have this release schedules and things that are holding the releases back.
The obsolete packages in Fedora shall grow more and more if it continue to have this schedules.
How can it be a leader if it releases packages later than another distro?
Anyway, congratulations to the ArchLinux folks. Their upstream work is fantastic. We love you guys![/quote]
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 10, 2012 18:09 UTC (Sat) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
I couldn't agree with you more. A Fedora install is unnecessarily disruptive, and once the new release is installed a very desirable 'yum update' will pull in lots of packages. Why not skip the six month reinstall phase and simply go rolling? Update Anaconda every so often so it keeps up with the state of the distro, and keep good documentation for dealing with disruptive changes.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 11, 2012 22:48 UTC (Sun) by jondkent (guest, #19595) [Link]
Sort of agree too. Not completely sold on rolling, but if they can get fedup working that'll fix my use case as I'm tied of 'install-use-blow away & reinstall' cycle. No real reason for this much anymore.
If the, far too short, 6 month major release could be thrown in the bin and replace with, say, a major once a year, via fedup if you want, and minor release during the year cycle to rebase the build tree, that'll be a step forward.
Re anaconda, I don't fully understand why Red Hat are so worked up about this. I look after lots of rhel servers at work and use kickstart for these. Can't remember the last time I used anaconda to install rhel.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 13, 2012 7:20 UTC (Tue) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] And what makes you believe that something actually named as a "rolling release" would be more stable than Fedora, which is a rolling release that doesn't happen to be called that?I can certainly understand the desire to have both stability and the latest and greatest stuff, but there's not actually a way to have both.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 14, 2012 15:13 UTC (Wed) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126) [Link]
I am not sure what you mean by stable.
AFAIK, The term "stable" refers more to the fact that the codebase itself doesn't have major changes made to it.
But fedora updates to the latest version including the kernel, So it totally negates any kind of stability whatsoever.
Fedora 18 already have around 10000 package updates, even before the beta is released. What is the point of having old packages getting released on january 2013 when you are anyway going to update to the latest version.
I use archlinux and Fedora in my systems and never found Arch crash becoz of some software upgrade. It always has been smooth. Its no way inferior to Fedora.
If anyone tries to use fedora on their production servers they obviously need some education on how to handle servers.
Contingency plans? Posted Nov 25, 2012 20:42 UTC (Sun) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]
Rawhide is mostly fine, particularly if you stick to non-GUI server-ish packages. I know this because I use Rawhide on my laptop [except right now, because I'm testing F18, but I'll flip back to Rawhide once F18 is out]. I also have numerous Rawhide VMs for testing, and for libguestfs we do an all-up test of a Rawhide VM every few days.
|
|||||||||||||