FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-12-2008, 06:06 PM
Jeremy Katz
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Fedora releases typically have a 6 month development cycle. We target
> specific dates for the release to give developers, end users, and
> upstreams a target to shoot for. Typically any slipping of a release we
> do, we just shorten the next release to make up for it. However a
> month's time is quite a lot to shrink. Especially because of the
> significance of F11.

FWIW, the past slippage of a month that we had, we made up the month
over the course of 2 release cycles to help reduce the impact to each
individual release.

> Fedora 11 will be extremely important to Red Hat Enterprise Linux
> (otherwise known as RHEL). RHEL 6 planning has looked to use Fedora 10
> and Fedora 11 as releases to work out new technologies and features that
> are desired in RHEL 6. This includes a lot of upstream work that is
> being done, and targeted to land in these two releases. That planning
> was also planning for a full 6 month Fedora 11 cycle, and Red Hat
> resources were lined up to take advantage of this, by participating more
> in the development cycle, in the testing cycle, in bugfixing, etc...
> This is a good thing.
>
> However, if we were to take a month out of Fedora 11s schedule to hit
> that May 1 date, we would shorten the amount of time we get the RH
> attention, and we shorten the amount of time we give our developers to
> land the pre-planned features. This is not a good thing. These are not
> just RH developers for RH features either, it's all developers for all
> features.

So, I don't fully buy this reasoning. As you said above, we target
consistent dates for each release. This is to help developers (upstream
and downstream) know when they need to target having things done. And
given that we try to do most of the work we have in Fedora in upstream
projects as opposed to in a Fedora silo, a slippage of a Fedora release
fundamentally doesn't change when things would need to be upstream. So
I don't see how the fact that we slipped our release due to
infrastructure problems shortens the amount of time developers have.
They had until May 1st before, they still have until May 1st (well,
before that due to freezes; but you get the idea

> But wait, if we pad Fedora 11 by a month, what about Fedora 12?
> Excellent question. We (releng) feel that if we set up Fedora 11 with a
> full 6 month schedule, and now set up F12 to take in some of that slip
> and shoot for Oct 31 release of F12, all interested parties will have a
> lot more time to prepare for a short release. In fact, we could even
> focus more on polish issues in F12 than large sweeping features, but I
> leave that up to the developers. We just feel that we can better plan
> for a short release in the F12 time frame than we can in the F11 time
> frame, and by doing so we can get back to our May 1, Oct 31 established
> dates which work pretty well in the Linux ecosystem. Of course, setting
> an F12 schedule now would be kind of silly given that we don't know what
> will happen during F11 (hey, look at what happened to F10!), but we can
> at least have an idea of what we'd like to do in F12.

How does more time help us to prepare for a shorter release? If more
time helps us prepare, why weren't people preparing already for this
with Fedora 11? And as was alluded to by bpepple, we actually have a
lot less freedom with a short fall/winter release due to the proximity
of the holidays (which we're currently wrestling with)

Also, I suspect that this problem will be even worse for a shortened
Fedora 12 where many Red Hat resources are concentrating on RHEL 6.
It's been a while since RHEL5, but the inability to get people's
attention on things for Fedora 7 was one of the (admittedly many)
reasons that it actually slipped out from the six month schedule.

If we're going to do a shortened release, we should make it be the one
that has the most possible attention from all stakeholders :-)

> Long story short, here is a simple schedule we'd like to present for
> F11. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/F11ProposedSchedule

I'd personally prefer that we keep to the dates that we have said and
are expected by the rest of the world. Fedora 11 has its target date of
the nearest Tuesday to May 1st (May 5th if I'm reading my calendar
correctly).

If, instead, we strongly feel that we need a longer schedule for Fedora
11, let's look at doing it for real. What actual features are people
looking to land for Fedora 11 that won't be ready in time for a May 1st
release and the corresponding beginning of March or thereabouts feature
freeze? From that, we can come up with what the schedule should be to
accommodate those features and we accept that Fedora 11 is a
feature-driven release with its schedule set based on that, rather than
being calendar driven. And if we do this, we shouldn't do it in a
vacuum ignoring Fedora 12's schedule -- instead, we should look at what
Fedora 12 looks like and take that into account. Maybe that over the
next 18 months we only have 2 releases as opposed to 3. But then we're
consciously making that decision based on what we're trying to
accomplish with the releases rather than just trying to make schedules
look pretty on paper.

Jeremy

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 06:13 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

Jeremy Katz (katzj@redhat.com) said:
> FWIW, the past slippage of a month that we had, we made up the month
> over the course of 2 release cycles to help reduce the impact to each
> individual release.

...

> > Long story short, here is a simple schedule we'd like to present for
> > F11. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/F11ProposedSchedule
>
> I'd personally prefer that we keep to the dates that we have said and
> are expected by the rest of the world. Fedora 11 has its target date of
> the nearest Tuesday to May 1st (May 5th if I'm reading my calendar
> correctly).

So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage
over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week?

Bill

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 06:16 PM
Jeremy Katz
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 14:13 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jeremy Katz (katzj@redhat.com) said:
> > FWIW, the past slippage of a month that we had, we made up the month
> > over the course of 2 release cycles to help reduce the impact to each
> > individual release.
>
> ...
>
> > > Long story short, here is a simple schedule we'd like to present for
> > > F11. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/F11ProposedSchedule
> >
> > I'd personally prefer that we keep to the dates that we have said and
> > are expected by the rest of the world. Fedora 11 has its target date of
> > the nearest Tuesday to May 1st (May 5th if I'm reading my calendar
> > correctly).

Er, guess this is April 28th.

> So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage
> over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week?

We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on
track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close
for the second one

Jeremy

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 06:21 PM
Thorsten Leemhuis
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

/me wanted to reply to the proposal right after it had been posted, but
didn't get around to it


On 12.11.2008 19:46, Jeremy Katz wrote:

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 19:30 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
<snip>

I'd like to see some conversation on this (or none if you all agree with
me) and a conclusion met within the next 2 weeks, that is at or before
the release of Fedora 10.


Just to make it obvious: I really dislike the idea, so it gets a strong
"-1" from me.



Looks pretty reasonable to me. My big concern is if we slip for F11
(which given our past track record is fairly likely) we'll be reducing
the F12 development cycle even more.

This reasoning is exactly why we decided a few years ago that the dates
(May Day/Halloween) were to be the target dates always.


It is (and iirc was) just one of the reasons (albeit likely the most
important ones).



If a release
slips, we realign the next one to what it should been targeted with.
Yes, it means a shortened window in this case for F11, but the
predictability it adds is significant and if F11 slips, the impact to
F12 is lessened.


Otherwise, we're really saying that the release date of release n+1 is
release n's date + six months (which is what we used to do). And the
problem with that is that any slips over time meaning that we end up
running into major holidays for a release date and have to have a
long/short cycle to reset things.


Which made a lot of people unhappy often -- for example at the time when
we skipped a gnome-release. A lot of people back then complained that
Ubuntu took all the glory for (Gnome) Features that had been developed
mostly by RH engineers, but first shipped in a Ubuntu release.


CU
knurd

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 06:22 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

Jeremy Katz (katzj@redhat.com) said:
> > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage
> > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week?
>
> We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on
> track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close
> for the second one

Sure, but I'm not sure pretending we won't slip is viable. If we do
take the 'attempt to make it up over two cycles' method, then this proposed
schedule is only a 1-1/2 to 2 week adjustment to that. So I don't think
it's that far out of line.

Bill

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 06:24 PM
Jeremy Katz
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 10:03 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Jeremy Katz <katzj@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Otherwise, we're really saying that the release date of release n+1 is
> > release n's date + six months (which is what we used to do). And the
> > problem with that is that any slips over time meaning that we end up
> > running into major holidays for a release date and have to have a
> > long/short cycle to reset things.
>
> Does it make sense to ask the following questions?
>
> Historically, how much do we tend to slip per release? Disregarding
> the month during F10 run up specifically during the infrastructure
> rebuild. Are we somewhat consistent with regard to slippage? Is there
> an average slippage? The sample size is pretty small so I admit its
> not a statically valid measure. What's the most we've slipped in the
> past, that is not the direct result of significant system downtime?

It's not an unreasonable question to ask. It's a little harder to
actually get the data since we change our schedule pages. I think John
Poelstra had tried to do some data mining leading to the proposal at
hand, but I'm not finding where he had stuck that off-hand. I can try
to dig through some mail archives if I'm mistaken

My off-the-cuff response is that recent slippage has been on the order
of two to three weeks, outliers of 4-5 but most of those have had
extenuating circumstances.

> Accounting for historical slippage, were does F12 release land? Mid Nov?

If we do two to three weeks for F11 from May 28th, then we get the
middle of June. If we add that to the shortened F12 schedule (since
shortening it more seems unreasonable, at least to me), it is scheduled
for mid November. And any slippage putting us into the
Thanksgiving/Christmas quagmire.

Jeremy

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 06:25 PM
Jeremy Katz
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 14:22 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jeremy Katz (katzj@redhat.com) said:
> > > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage
> > > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week?
> >
> > We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on
> > track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close
> > for the second one
>
> Sure, but I'm not sure pretending we won't slip is viable. If we do
> take the 'attempt to make it up over two cycles' method, then this proposed
> schedule is only a 1-1/2 to 2 week adjustment to that. So I don't think
> it's that far out of line.

Until we slip from the schedule, at which point it's more like 4-5
weeks.

Jeremy

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 06:39 PM
"Stephen John Smoogen"
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Jeremy Katz <katzj@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Otherwise, we're really saying that the release date of release n+1 is
>> release n's date + six months (which is what we used to do). And the
>> problem with that is that any slips over time meaning that we end up
>> running into major holidays for a release date and have to have a
>> long/short cycle to reset things.
>
> Does it make sense to ask the following questions?
>
> Historically, how much do we tend to slip per release? Disregarding
> the month during F10 run up specifically during the infrastructure
> rebuild. Are we somewhat consistent with regard to slippage? Is there
> an average slippage? The sample size is pretty small so I admit its
> not a statically valid measure. What's the most we've slipped in the
> past, that is not the direct result of significant system downtime?
>
> Accounting for historical slippage, were does F12 release land? Mid Nov?
>

Historically, Red Hat Linux missed a internal and external ship date
by 2 weeks to 1 month pretty consistently. Fedora seems about the
same. Some of it was because 'stuff happens' and some of it was that a
some set of people don't get serious about something until the
deadline starts looming.Those people's effects have a trickle down
effect which usually adds up to a slip. I think the closest RH came to
an on target release was when everyone in development was told that X
was the ship date and Y turned out to be what management expected. X
was missed by Y was hit.


--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 06:44 PM
"Stephen John Smoogen"
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jeremy Katz <katzj@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Fedora releases typically have a 6 month development cycle. We target
>> specific dates for the release to give developers, end users, and
>> upstreams a target to shoot for. Typically any slipping of a release we
>> do, we just shorten the next release to make up for it. However a
>> month's time is quite a lot to shrink. Especially because of the
>> significance of F11.
>
> FWIW, the past slippage of a month that we had, we made up the month
> over the course of 2 release cycles to help reduce the impact to each
> individual release.
>
>> Fedora 11 will be extremely important to Red Hat Enterprise Linux
>> (otherwise known as RHEL). RHEL 6 planning has looked to use Fedora 10
>> and Fedora 11 as releases to work out new technologies and features that
>> are desired in RHEL 6. This includes a lot of upstream work that is
>> being done, and targeted to land in these two releases. That planning
>> was also planning for a full 6 month Fedora 11 cycle, and Red Hat
>> resources were lined up to take advantage of this, by participating more
>> in the development cycle, in the testing cycle, in bugfixing, etc...
>> This is a good thing.
>>
>> However, if we were to take a month out of Fedora 11s schedule to hit
>> that May 1 date, we would shorten the amount of time we get the RH
>> attention, and we shorten the amount of time we give our developers to
>> land the pre-planned features. This is not a good thing. These are not
>> just RH developers for RH features either, it's all developers for all
>> features.
>
> So, I don't fully buy this reasoning. As you said above, we target
> consistent dates for each release. This is to help developers (upstream
> and downstream) know when they need to target having things done. And
> given that we try to do most of the work we have in Fedora in upstream
> projects as opposed to in a Fedora silo, a slippage of a Fedora release
> fundamentally doesn't change when things would need to be upstream. So
> I don't see how the fact that we slipped our release due to
> infrastructure problems shortens the amount of time developers have.
> They had until May 1st before, they still have until May 1st (well,
> before that due to freezes; but you get the idea

I agree with Jeremy on this one. In the past, pushing out target dates
usually cause more conflicts with other schedules than it helps.




--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 06:44 PM
Thorsten Leemhuis
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On 12.11.2008 20:06, Jeremy Katz wrote:

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:

> [...]

Fedora 11 will be extremely important to Red Hat Enterprise Linux
(otherwise known as RHEL). RHEL 6 planning has looked to use Fedora 10
and Fedora 11 as releases to work out new technologies and features that
are desired in RHEL 6. This includes a lot of upstream work that is
being done, and targeted to land in these two releases. That planning
was also planning for a full 6 month Fedora 11 cycle, and Red Hat
resources were lined up to take advantage of this, by participating more
in the development cycle, in the testing cycle, in bugfixing, etc...
This is a good thing.


Fedora is a Red Hat sponsored project and a lot of Fedora developers are
payed by Red Hat. Nevertheless: What really irritates and annoys me is
that it at least *looks like* the idea to delay Fedora 11 a bit to help
RHEL 6 seems to come from *within* the project.


That's IMHO totally wrong way around and IMHO should not have happened.

Fedora IMHO should try to more act like a independent project if Fedora
wants to get taken serious; otherwise Fedora will always stay a RH pet
project that is unattractive to other medium or big sized Linux
companies that might want to get involved in Fedora as well.


Things like that also won't help to get rid of the "Fedora is just a
RHEL beta" fame most of us dislike.


Note that I have *no* problem with the idea itself that RH might want us
to delay F11 (apart from the fact that I belive that predictable release
dates are quite important). But RH should clearly have asked the project
in a kind of official way "Can you please consider a one month delay for
F11 as it would suite us very well".


> [...]

I'd personally prefer that we keep to the dates that we have said and
are expected by the rest of the world. Fedora 11 has its target date of
the nearest Tuesday to May 1st (May 5th if I'm reading my calendar
correctly).


Strong +1 (not only to this, but to about everything Jeremy wrote in his
mail)


CU
knurd

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:38 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org