Slashdot Log In
It's Not Time for OSS Release Cycle Synchronization
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed May 21, 2008 10:12 AM
from the something-to-think-about dept.
from the something-to-think-about dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Shuttleworth Calls For Coordinated Release Cycles 238 comments
voodoosws points out on Mark Shuttleworth's blog Shuttleworth's call for synchronized publication of Linux distributions, excerpting: "There's one thing that could convince me to change the date of the next Ubuntu LTS: the opportunity to collaborate with the other, large distributions on a coordinated major / minor release cycle. If two out of three of Red Hat (RHEL), Novell (SLES) and Debian are willing to agree in advance on a date to the nearest month, and thereby on a combination of kernel, compiler toolchain, GNOME/KDE, X and OpenOffice versions, and agree to a six-month and 2-3 year long term cycle, then I would happily realign Ubuntu's short and long-term cycles around that. I think the benefits of this sort of alignment to users, upstreams and the distributions themselves would be enormous. I'll write more about this idea in due course, for now let's just call it my dream of true free software syncronicity."
Firehose:OSS release cycle synchronization: it's not time by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Counter-proposal? (Score:2)
Do you expect us to read the article? Or do you provide a summary of the proposal?
Re:Counter-proposal? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if I was in charge of a FOSS project (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:if I was in charge of a FOSS project (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:if I was in charge of a FOSS project (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Depending on who you ask, a project as complicated and large as a Linux distribution release might never be ready. Hence periodic release dates, which seem to be working just fine for Ubuntu.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 release; efforts are concentrated on bullet proofing what can done. Developers that can't or won't take on this kind of responsible change of focus are going to produce crappy software no matter what (irresponsible behavior is a quality of the developer that
Re:if I was in charge of a FOSS project (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Translation of Seigo's suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a good article. The Internet was actually useful today.
Imho (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Imho (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
A lot of buzz (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 just fine to do what she needs and saved herself a few hundred dollars over having to buy Windows.
If the reason you want grandma to run unix is because you're sick of having to clean spyware off of her system, frankly it very well may be overkill. It's like using an elephant gun to hunt a squirrel.
No, I had it installed on the Dell machine she bought because it saved her money and it can do everything she needs.
However, it seems to me that if people want to come to a *nix system, they should take the time to learn how and why things are the way they are. I can see no benefit from trying to make the system more like windows, because it will just cause confusion and frustration.
Why should they have to? I've never unders
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 that you care what some random person uses to do what they want?
Look at it this way -- if I need to apply baseboard molding to the wall in my house, I /could/ use a nail gun, but a hammer would do just fine.
Yeah, and if all a person wants to do is browse the web and read email, why should they spend a few hundred dollars for an OS that they don't need?
I would whole-heartedly endorse an operating system designed from scratch to serve the needs of plain ol' users. However, trying to take a model of operation and then bend it and break it into something it wasn't meant to be under the guise of "but it /can/ be all things to all people" seems a tad misguided to me, perhaps even lazy.
What is being bent and broken in Linux to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 my laptop should possibly need a compiler unless I happen to be a developer. Particularly not the boxes I set up for my parents which they're happily using but would have as much use for a compiler as an ERP system.
The goal seems to be to increase homogeny across distributions - however, homogeny between ubuntu and rhel? quite frankly, why?
- Stronger competition on distro feature
2008 (Score:5, Funny)
Sync would please ISVs (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything that makes it easier to for major software vendors to release and support software makes Linux stronger.
Way To Go Aaron (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)