Le mardi 14 juin 2011 à 02:36 +0200, Bruno Cornec a écrit : > Michael Scherer said on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:31:46AM +0200: > > > And I think we can already decide to release 1 week later if a > > release_critical bug appears. Fedora 15 for example was 2 weeks late, > > because they changed the release date twice after having seen some > > problem (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/15/Schedule ). > > I think that the level of flexibility that is really useful. Fixing a > target is nice for all projects. Now, if a blocking point happens, it's > wise to delay a bit. > > I personaly find ridiculous the Ubuntu approach to release at fixed > dates, whatever happens, becasue it's 11.04, it should be in April 2011 > !! But then their community is just angry because of the lack of > quality due to that.
They did a push of 2 months in 2006 ( 6.06 instead of 6.04 for Dapper Drake ). But I think that was a isolated change, and Mark Shuttleworth is pushing for keeping schedule. We were praised because we were not late too :) > So maybe what would be interesting is to have something like: > M1-M8: break and fix cauldron with lots of new stuff. > M8-M8.5: freeze period. Only bug fixes or HW support improvements goes > through or mageia tools. In particular, no new KDE, Gnome, LibreO, FF, > ... > M8.5-M9: test period. Only bugs found there are fixed. As the cauldron > is closed, people have more time to upgrage with an already stabilized > distro, to make it really stable at the 9 months date. Well, that's the plan, with the release date come then the decision about the freeze period, even if we got mixed signals here : - we want longer freeze because that mean less bugs - we also see that people always want to have freeze exception because bugfixing is less fun that adding feature :) So that warrant also another discussion ( even if I think the current division is fine, but it could be adapted if the release model is different ). -- Michael Scherer
