regular release policy

phrakture · 2007-03-15 20:08:51

AndyRTR wrote:

shilder wrote:
I believe Ubuntu is a solid number one because a) it has a cool name
"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word means "I can't configure Slackware"
only advantage of fresh iso is a fresh packages on it
This is some kind of statement we won't accept in this forum. No distro bashing here please!

I think it was a joke

Alphalutra1 · 2007-03-15 22:55:16

I have always like openbsd's release cycle, because it is not too long of a time, but also not too short (not like it matters with Arch's rolling release though). Every six months, a new version is released (May 1 and Nov. 1 usually)

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

[vEX] · 2007-03-15 23:01:07

As long as you don't end up with the long cycles Debian are having I don't really have a problem with if the release cycle. Though I think it would be nice with at least 2 releases a year so all those new installs don't have to update that many packages right away.

shevegen · 2007-03-16 00:14:22

I think two fixed releases / year would be a nice compromise.

This way the devs dont feel pressured too much into putting a lot of work into
extra stuff while the users feel the progress.

4 / year is a bit much maybe, I'd be fine with 2/year totally.

6 / year, thats a helluva much. :-)

hacosta · 2007-03-16 03:01:35

how about setting an arbitrary number of isos per year (say 2,3 or 4) and also releasing when it's necesarry, i.e devfs->udev initrd, initcpio, or pretty much any update that required using interaction

shilder · 2007-03-16 11:22:21

AndyRTR wrote:

shilder wrote:
I believe Ubuntu is a solid number one because a) it has a cool name
"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word means "I can't configure Slackware"
only advantage of fresh iso is a fresh packages on it :)
This is some kind of statement we won't accept in this forum. No distro bashing here please!

it was just a joke :)
don't be so serious... =)
i have much more interesting things to do than to begin another holy war around distros :)
and yeah... i like openbsd release policy :)

AndyRTR · 2007-03-16 12:35:29

Why having releases in a rolling system?

1.) for the first installation - the ftp-only iso is enough. only when we change important things related to the kernel and bootsystem or the installer itself we need to update that iso.

beyond that there's no need for having additional packages on it as they are almost outdated when released. having a good internet connection is almost a must have to run Arch.

2.) user with low bandwidth would need much more than our full current iso. maybe we should prepare a reorganisation that way we can offer dvd isos with all packages that have no license issues forbidding to spread them. other packages may be available in a non-free repo.

just my 2c

deficite · 2007-03-16 15:58:36

1.) for the first installation - the ftp-only iso is enough. only when we change important things related to the kernel and bootsystem or the installer itself we need to update that iso.

I haven't tried the new install discs, but I know that with the older ones I can't get my wireless drivers to compile to use them. Not all of us are blessed with easy access to ethernet. I read that the new install discs are supposed to be able to do so or something to the matter. All I know is that I've gotten used to using Archie and newarch to install Arch. I think it's easier, personally. If I get time, I've always thought about making an installer for Arch myself and possibly using Archie to do so.

.:B:. · 2007-03-16 17:35:58

AndyRTR wrote:

Why having releases in a rolling system?
1.) for the first installation - the ftp-only iso is enough. only when we change important things related to the kernel and bootsystem or the installer itself we need to update that iso.

That is a good point. This pretty much rules out people that are not handy with the CLI (or with configuring their network on the CLI, especially wireless). I'm just thinking about possible complications here.

2.) user with low bandwidth would need much more than our full current iso. maybe we should prepare a reorganisation that way we can offer dvd isos with all packages that have no license issues forbidding to spread them. other packages may be available in a non-free repo.

The question you have to ask with full ISOs is: will you need everything on it? Most people won't. I don't use quite some stuff from the 'base' category already, and there's a lot from current most people will not install. If you offer a DVD ISO, this problem will only remain bigger. Although an FTP install might be a pain over a slow connection, it will be the best option for those people - in the end you'll have a lot less MB wasted compared to when you download the current ISO or the DVD ISO.

Of course that argument isn't valid for people wanting to do multiple installs; but i don't think many people have and multiple boxes and a slow internet connection.

Last edited by B (2007-03-16 17:37:27)

lloeki · 2007-03-16 18:39:31

I just came to Arch, but maybe that's why my PoV can be relevant in the end. My installation procedure roughly one month ago was to boot arch-0.7, install, and pacman -Syu. This went well, barring one point: I couldn't boot, because of the switch to mkinitcpio. this was easily fixed, but took some time.

Besides, I like the versioning based on the installer version, I think it makes great sense

Reading all of the above, and from my personal experience, I think interest of more frequent releases is mainly motivated by:
1. ease of install for loosely-connected people (dial-up and the likes)
2. failure to boot livecd on new, widespread, hardware (like jmicron)
3. being on-par with 'big' changes in the distro (like the mkinitcpio change), again this eases install.
4. let the distro feel less 'stale', that's public relations issue

I don't want to feel big and such, so, take it or trash it, here's my suggestion:
- a new release triggered by an installer change, changes the 'major.minor' version (just like now)
- a new release triggered by a system upgrade (to support new, specific, widespread hardware, or to be sync with a big change), changes the .revision
- a rerelease triggered by a 'timeout' (no release since 3 months), changes a -rN

example:
- 0.8 goes live, with its new installer
- one month later 0.8.1 is out, because some shiny new sata controller is out, and gets bundled in a thousands of laptop models, and it makes it a pain for many many users which have to build their own livecd
- 0.8.1-r1 is out, because this has been 3 month without a release
- one month later, 0.8.2 is out, because hey, (e.g) pacman 3 went live!

I think that solves points 1 to 4, while at the same time being coherent with the current versioning scheme. what I don't know though is if that fits with the Arch philosophy, if it's really doable in any way, if it's smart or if it's completely retarded. so, feel free to hit me hard for that.

Mandor · 2007-03-16 22:39:06

I think fresh ISOs would be useful few times a year - after major breakage or, if none occurred - within few (several) months from the last one. Just to save some download time on install and struggling with ghosts from the past (i.e. fixing sth that actually does not to be fixed already). That was mentioned already. I think that it should monitor only the base + X (only major problems). More is just too much, less is not really useful.

About the release versions - it seems pretty logical and simple and clear to use the release date. If there are no two releases two or three weeks, it can be a la Ubuntu (that's something very sound about Ubuntu). It is also much more informative. Test ISOs (alpha, beta, rc, etc) can have their own snapshot date... Names could remain to give some character and also feature important updates to base. (Like: Arch "Tinky" has two releases - 3.2104 that features major new version of pacman and 5.2104 that fixes awful breakage in what would be udev then, and Arch "Winky" has only one release - 10.2104). Something like that. Finally,however, the name of something depends on its authors and how their like it. It's not really that important from user POV.

iphitus · 2007-03-17 00:29:02

I also think snapshots should be better.

Quarterly may be hard, as dusty said, worried about manpower, but I think we could do it.
Half yearly is too infrequent imho,

So i think thrice yearly. January, May, September?

James

Anonymo · 2007-03-17 05:40:34

Isn't there a script that makes a new iso from the ftp?

sudman1 · 2007-03-20 14:18:13

There IS a script that Spider.007 created specifically for this purpose. See http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=12178 for details. It would allow the devs to make easy periodic releases.
BTW, I'm for the 3 isos/year release schedule. I think it makes things easier for someone who falls behind in their Syu's and can't be bothered fixing the little things, or miss the comments at the end of one package of 50 in their last sync. I've been wanting to nuke one of my older systems and start over, but have been waiting for the new release before I do.

Arch Linux

#26 2007-03-15 20:08:51

Re: regular release policy

#27 2007-03-15 22:55:16

Re: regular release policy

#28 2007-03-15 23:01:07

Re: regular release policy

#29 2007-03-16 00:14:22

Re: regular release policy

#30 2007-03-16 03:01:35

Re: regular release policy

#31 2007-03-16 11:22:21

Re: regular release policy

#32 2007-03-16 12:35:29

Re: regular release policy

#33 2007-03-16 15:58:36

Re: regular release policy

#34 2007-03-16 17:35:58

Re: regular release policy

#35 2007-03-16 18:39:31

Re: regular release policy

#36 2007-03-16 22:39:06

Re: regular release policy

#37 2007-03-17 00:29:02

Re: regular release policy

#38 2007-03-17 05:40:34

Re: regular release policy

#39 2007-03-20 14:18:13

Re: regular release policy

Board footer