Difference between Debian and other flavours of Linux

[Jim Cornette]

Mike McCarty wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 14:02 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>>> Max Spevack wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of the dislikes I have with Fedora *is* the release schedule.
>>>>>>>> There'll be a release around a certain date, ready or not, 
>>>>>>>> sensible or
>>>>>>>> not.  A new release comes up around the time the last one has 
>>>>>>>> many of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just what Fedora is. The releases are time based, not
>>>>> readiness or QA based.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You do realize that we slipped the release of FC5 because it wasn't 
>>>> ready at the initial date, right?  :-)
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We *try* to do a 6 month release cycle, but we don't demand it "just 
>>>
>>> I don't recall using the word "demand", nor did I use the phrase
>>> "just because". I used the phrase "time based".
>>>
>>
>>
>> Time is just one of the factors in the release schedule.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> because".  It's a goal, and it gives us something to shoot for, and 
>>>> keeps in mind the Fedora motto of rapid progress.
>>>
>>> Perhaps English is not one of your native languages. For something
>>> to be "based" in English does not mean "solely based", as you seem
>>> to think I was implying.
>>
>>
>> Your certainly claimed that it was not readiness or QA based which is
>> incorrect since we have indeed delayed the schedule to do more QA on
>> several occasions before. I do remember me correctly this specific
>> misconception earlier from you too.
> 
> I don't want to get into the niceties of the language used, however,
> the release of Fedora is definitely not QA based, but time based,
> your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Just see above "We *try* to do a 6 month release cycle...."
> 
> IOW, the basis for release is time lapse. If the quality is so low
> that it just isn't reasonable, then it gets held up.
> 
> I also recall you making similar false claims earlier as well.
> It isn't necessary to remind me.
> 
> Mike


The release of FC5 was handled quite well in my observation. It is true 
that the release cycles are basically snapshots and the version 
reference scheme that no longer regards minor version references makes 
one number more of a tally from one release to the next. Regardless, the 
release was delayed a few times in order to ensure major upgrades were 
not required immediately after release. A few problems still crept up 
regarding certain elements like kernel modules for binary applications. 
The problem was fixed shortly after the release was finalized.

I really do not see any differences stated regarding Debian, Fedora and 
other distributions being discussed.

Jim

-- 
Generosity and perfection are your everlasting goals.