Wild and crazy times for the development tree

[Mike A. Harris]

Paul F. Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
>>But let's get a clear roadmap down this time, what features are
>>essential for the next cycle?
> 
> 
> A *much* reduced core size (5 CDs + rescue is getting a bit much) and
> large reduction in the overall memory overhead. I know FC is fantastic,
> but given you need 128Mb for a text only version and 512Mb for a desktop
> environment, it's becoming hard to justify to the powers that be that
> using Linux over WinXP is that good an option.

Are you implying that the only reason one would choose Linux over
Windows XP, is because it has lower memory and system requirements?

That is one particular usage case scenario that might tilt the scales
of a given rollout to a Linux based solution over an XP based one, but
there are far far more other reasons for using Linux over XP than just
"lower memory/disk footprint".

Having expressed this though, I also agree with you completely, in that
it would be nice to see the overall memory footprint reduced in a sane
manner without tossing out desired functionality, etc.


> Slack 10 can run (text only) in 18Mb with a desktop environment in 64Mb
> - Debian (sorry for swearing on this list) is a whole lot smaller than
> FC in terms of memory again.

Sure, different distributions focus on different areas, with some
levels of overlapping.  I don't think it is even possible at all
to make a complete one-size-fits all distribution however, because
different people have different and often conflicting
goals/requirements.


> I think it was suggested that ISOs are made of FE. It may be time to do
> this, but with quite a lot from FC moved to it. For example, gcc-gnat,
> gfortran, objc and anything *not* mono/mcs (in other words, beagle,
> fspot etc) should, IMHO, be in extras - and yes, I do use gfortran and
> gnat. The OOo language packs should also be moved out - just keep in
> french, german, spanish and any big userbases.

IMHO, moving more and more stuff out of Core and into Extras is an
overall good idea, so long as the infrastructure is present in
_advance_ to make it easy to install the stuff that has moved to
Extras, both at OS install time and later, and without requiring
mandatory network access.  ie:  Fedora Extras on CD, kindof like
powertools was before, but with anaconda support for that.

Anaconda support for additional arbitrary CDs would be nice.


> The same applies to Qt and KDE - quite a lot of the material in there
> should be in extras, Qt (standard + devel) and some of the kde system
> should be in Core. We also have a number of different database systems
> in Core. Could a case not be made for trimming it down to MySQL and
> postgresql with the rest again going to FE?

I use KDE mainly, but with mostly GTK apps.  Moving KDE to Extras would
be ok I guess, so long as I can still choose to install it at install
time, and not have to mess around a lot post install.

> 9 months is a long time for a release. Perhaps an interim release at the
> 5 month stage would be an advantage.
> 
> Obviously, these are just ideas *but* they do answer a growing number of
> criticisms of FC.

The only reason there might be growing numbers of criticisms of FC,
is that the userbase is expanding, so it makes sense that as the
number of users increase in volume that the number of both praises
and criticisms will increase in volume proportionately.

If we had a tug of war contest, in which 6 month cycle was the centre
of the tug of war starting point, and the team pulling to pull it
towards 4-5 months was on one side, and the team pulling on the
7-12 months was on the other side, I think we would clearly see the
"6 month flag" start out at the center, move a bit to the left, then
back to center and a bit to the right, and keep doing that more or
less indefinitely, until everyone passed out from exhaustion, or the
rope broke in half.

It makes more sense to base the release date off the features planned
for that release and an estimate of how much time is required to
obtain those features.  That includes in-house developed features,
and accounting for upstream release dates of various software that
are desired in the release.

That's much more important IMHO than arbitrary dates picked because
some people want a faster release cycle or longer release cycle for
their own individual preferences/desires.



-- 
Mike A. Harris  *  Open Source Advocate  *  http://mharris.ca
                       Proud Canadian.