It's Not Time for OSS Release Cycle Synchronization

Bakkies Botha writes "Ars Technica weighs in with some detailed analysis on the controversial issue of open source release cycle synchronization. Ars explains how time-based release cycles work and takes a close look at how the release management strategy suggested by Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth would impact open source software projects. Ars concludes that Shuttleworth's proposal isn't currently viable and argues that the BFDL is overstating the potential to simplify development with better version control tools. Ars also examines a counter-proposal offered by KDE developer Aaron Seigo and explains how it enables users to get the same benefits of synchronization without disrupting upstream development."

Counter-proposal?

Ars also examines a counter-proposal offered by KDE.

Do you expect us to read the article? Or do you provide a summary of the proposal?

Re:Counter-proposal?

Basically its a very long post, but the gist of what I read was why dont you just build it yourself instead of asking us to to drop nicely packaged tars on your doorstep.

Re:

That cuts both ways. If you change the package, you're not reflecting some crazy will of the developer or making them look bad etc. If you don't upgrade it often enough, the developer (and some users) get angry that you're still shipping old code of theirs

if I was in charge of a FOSS project

I would release when it was ready, not when some stupid release cycle rolled around, that is what everyone does not need is some schedule to pressure developers to release before a product is ready...

Re:if I was in charge of a FOSS project

The idea of the schedule is not to encourage a premature release, but to encourage a sufficiently attainable definition of "ready" such that a release eventually happens.

Re:

Sure, but you can at least prioritize certain features, which is then essentially a schedule, and you might as well release features once they are ready (because, as you say, they are ready).

Re:if I was in charge of a FOSS project

OFC not specifying a schedule leads to e17, hurd, etc

Re:

And the amount of usability versus development time far eclipses Hurd by many magnitudes. KDE4 was especially a clusterfuck, but in comparison to the usability of Hurd after 24 years, they're in totally different ballparks.

Re:

Given the number of "is Linux ready for the desktop?" discussion threads, I'm pretty glad they don't follow your advice on releases.

Depending on who you ask, a project as complicated and large as a Linux distribution release might never be ready. Hence pe

Re:

Trying to alter this basic truth results in death marches, bad, bug-ridden software, disaffected developers, dissatisfied users, and "we'll fix that in the next release" bullsh*t.

If there were Godwin Awards, parent post would be a contender...

When there is a set release date, responsible developers will keep it in mind and change plans as the freeze approaches: things that are unlikely to be finished are put off to the next rel

Re:if I was in charge of a FOSS project

There really isn't a perfect way to release Linux distributions. With timed releases components are prioritized quickly, but some stuff gets left out. With feature-based releases you have to wait until some number of components are ready so the release date is a mystery.

I think it's great the way it is: each distro has their own method, you can pick the one that's right for you. It's the ultimate in technical Darwinism.

Translation of Seigo's suggestion

"Why don't you quite whining and help us develop and release the software you're re-packaging and trying to make money from."

This was a good article. The Internet was actually useful today.

Imho

The benefits aren`t worth it. Look at Vista and KDE4, they were released too soon and look what happened - you got half of the promised features and half of the stability

Re:Imho

Vista has the remarkable property of being released years too late and still too soon at the same time.

A lot of buzz

When I first read of Shuttleworth's proposal, I figured that it might be easier to start the sync project among the community distributions which feed into the commercial ones. However, thinking further, there seems to be more issues involved and I'm starting to think that it might not be that great of an idea, or terribly important.

the Linux-based wing of the f/oss community in particular is reaching a point where they finally have a large swath of people who are merely "end users," and whose biggest gripes aren't about some flaw in some obscure patch to imblib (for example), but are "i can't play dvds out of the box, so linux is t3h gay."

For whatever reason, people have decided that a holy quest to "destroy Microsoft" and encourage wide-spread adoption of gnu/linux-based operating systems would be totally awesome. Ubuntu is geared at those "new recruits," with large amounts of hand-holding and media support. Mint is even better with its media support, but completely lacks dev tools if you install from the live image -- seriously, what sort of *nix system thinks you don't need a C compiler by default and makes you go looking for it in the repositories?

Trying to sync up Red Hat or SuSE who have more or less gotten out of the consumer market and are targeting professional users - developers, engineers, etc - in the workplace environment with some candy-for-kids distro is frankly a little weird.

The goal seems to be to increase homogeny across distributions - however, homogeny between ubuntu and rhel? quite frankly, why?

The systems are targeted at different sets of people with different requirements and philosophies. Holding off on releasing Red Hat until Ubuntu is ready, which requires KDE and GNOME to sync up (more or less) sounds a little ridiculous and over-the-top.

If FreeBSD were to wait until something they were trying to adopt from OpenBSD were ready, certain individuals with well known personality flaws very well might pull some sort of stunt just to make the others look bad. Given how high emotions seem to run between KDE and GNOME people, I wouldn't be surprised if one did something to spite the other, which then filtered down to Ubuntu and RH getting the shaft and looking dumb.

The "community" is a whole lot bigger than it was 10-15 years ago, a bit colder and less friendly to boot. I have serious doubts that in the current climate this could be pulled off, even if something were to be gained by all parties -- which again, I don't think is the case anymore.

Just my $0.02; your exchange rate my vary.

Re:A lot of buzz

"seriously, what sort of *nix system thinks you don't need a C compiler by default and makes you go looking for it in the repositories?"

One that targets non-developer desktop users ? Or even servers ?

As a sysadmin one of the many tasks I do to vanilla installs is to either uninstall the dev tools or restrict them to a particular group. Many exploits automatically download source for their rootkits or trojans etc. and compile it on the machine. Not having dev tools available to the user that the web server is running under, for example, makes these types of attacks more difficult and helps limit what an attacker can do if he does gain access (imagine a scenario where the attacker has no shell but can tell the web server to execute commands ... a simple 'wget' and 'make' later and he has himself a back door that gives him shell access as the web server user).

In other words, if you have no pressing need for dev tools then it's wiser not to have them installed. If you're a developer then you can easily add them via the repositories.

Re:

I could type documents, browse the web, and hang out on AIM just fine in Windows.

You've got that backwards. If those are the things someone uses their computer for, why would they pay for Windows?

Re:

If all I wanted to do was basic, every day tasks, Win2k or XP would be more than sufficient. I wouldn't need anything else. Application availability would not be an issue.

But what if one wants a free OS to do all those things? Why should they have to have Windows? Why do you get so bothered over someone using your 1337 OS to do only simple tasks?

It wasn't supposed to be "for grandma." Stallman and the FSF, with their evangelistic, holy-war approach to software may have confused the issue. "free software for everyone! information wants to be free!"

I don't really care who you've deemed it "for". My grandma uses Ubuntu jus

Re:

Its not about being "banned from using" -- its about the right tool for the job.

And a free OS that does everything she needs is the right tool for the job.

Widnows isn't /terrible/, except maybe from an engineering standpoint.

I never made any such pronouncements on the quality of Windows.

Vista may be terrible, but that's not the point. Win2k pro and XP pro are pretty unobtrusive.

And they also cost more money for some people than it's worth when a free OS can do everything they need.

Why is it that "the right tool for the job" only seems to apply between linux distros around here. if I were saying 'use a mac,' then I might get modded up for it, too though.

Why is it

Re:

seriously, what sort of *nix system thinks you don't need a C compiler by default and makes you go looking for it in the repositories?

Uhh... a system that you USE? My car came with an instruction manual, not a mechanic's manual and tools. Compiling code others have compiled before is a total waste of time (sorry gentoo), I haven't got any clue why my home server, my htpc, my desktop or

2008

And here I thought that 2008 was the year of Linux release cycle synchronization on the desktop.

Sync would please ISVs

I think syncing the major distro's would be a boon to Linux overall. It would make support easier for third party vendors and ISVs, which might induce them to release more major Linux applications. For instance, Oracle or Adobe whould know that a particular version of their product would only have to support a certain kernel (altough each distro has patches) and a certain version of Gnome and/or KDE as opposed to ten different point-releases of kernel,KDE, and Gnome. The would know which versions of the Gnu utililities they can expect to support.

Anything that makes it easier to for major software vendors to release and support software makes Linux stronger.

Way To Go Aaron

Shuttleworth's idea is designed to further Ubuntu at the expense of the projects packaged therein. Specifically, he's trying to shift quite a bit of the release work onto the projects he packages.

Aaron's post is a must-read for anyone vaguely interested in the topic. In particular,
It is not overly dramatic to say that if we make Free software development overly sterile via choice of process, there will be a commensurate diminishment in participation and momentum. I interpret that as Aaron recognizing the corrosive effect on the entire dev community by adopting Shuttleworth's scheme.

Better still, Aaron offers constructive alternatives. It's really nice to read and should be a template for most blogging.

Someone please explain why Shuttleworth's idea hasn't been swatted down the day he posted it.

Today's lesson: Learn to disagree without personal attacks and offer viable alternatives.

Re:Way To Go Aaron

Did you even read the articles?

Shuttleworth is saying that if the distros synchronized, upstream developers would have better information about release cycles and could chose whether to target a particular release with their new features or not (essentially, when to branch for release and focus on stabilization). If it's not ready, then it's not ready and just shoot for 6 months later.

This guy Aaron makes a good point in that this shifts work upstream, but I don't agree that this is disruptive. Aaron's great idea? Have the distributors basically go into each and every project and make and manage the release branches themselves! Imagine someone else coming into your project and going "We're branching here because I said so". Gee, not very good with people is he?

If the distros synchronize, upstream can just ignore it if they feel like. There isn't really much of a downside. If you do chose to synchronize you can still have features released when they are ready, but deployments (releases/tarballs) happening on schedule. It's just a matter of which branches you merge.

On Ars' theory that big changes are prevented by a branch and merge, timed release approach, GCC has used a 3-stage (major change, improvement, stabilization) release cycle since GCC 3.1 in 2001. Rather large changes have been done since then until the 4.4 branch in development. Granted, Mark Mitchel has done a superb job at release management (i.e. cat herding) and recently had 3 more people join in in this job.

Even Linus does this fairly often (change too big, goes in next version so we can push this one out the door)

At best, distros could help with consulting and advising on this job, but the release planning and management must come from within each community. His point about shifting work is good, and release management for big, flaship projects could be provided by people from each company (as I'm sure redhat et al have people working on each project anyway), but big projects probably have something like it established anyway.

I'm still not seeing the downside to synchronized but ignorable schedules downstream.

Re:

meet debian lenny (testing)