Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Proposed Process Changes For X Server 1.8

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Yeah and if only all features took as long to be written and if only all coders wrote code as fast and... Oh, wait, it's impossible in practice?
    No, it isn't impossible in practice. The fglrx drivers of AMDT/ATI for the Radeon cards have released like this for about two years now, with monthly releases.

    Yes, we can read frustrated chief editors claiming "nothing exiting this month" etc. But, so what. They release. And they release smaller and gradual improvements more often, and, larger and more involving changes as well, but less often. Like it is expected to be.

    So, I think this step is in the correct direction.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1

    Default

    For years I've been waiting for a clipboard that remembers clips after I close an app. Finally, possibly there is hope.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sabriah View Post
    No, it isn't impossible in practice. The fglrx drivers of AMDT/ATI for the Radeon cards have released like this for about two years now, with monthly releases.
    You mean with these bug-free and well-tested monthly releases that no one ever complains about?
    Seriously though, we all know that's a moronic example. People have to resort to betas of future versions because monthly releases just don't suffice. Sure, if everyone used X.org as git snapshots too, we wouldn't have all this hassle with versions. But as it is, you seem to be more forgiving on AMD/ATi developers for not delivering features in time for releases than X.org. Why's that?
    Last edited by nanonyme; 09-27-2009 at 06:27 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    [...] you seem to be more forgiving on AMD/ATi developers for not delivering features in time for releases than X.org. Why's that?
    Because I have worked as a developer and I know hard it can be to deliver...

    Guess why I don't work as one any longer.

    I do still code, but not for someone else.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sabriah View Post
    Yes, we can read frustrated chief editors claiming "nothing exiting this month" etc. But, so what. They release. And they release smaller and gradual improvements more often, and, larger and more involving changes as well, but less often. Like it is expected to be.
    This makes NO sense. Sorry, but X.org, whether you take only the X-Server or X.org, is at a point where the main thing people complain about is missing features/unstable performance.

    Let's try this from another viewpoint: What is your reason for upgrading to X-Server 1.7? Stability? Really? What got people excited was the possibilities of Multi-Pointer-X, and even that didn't make it completely.

    I don't really get upgrading for upgradings sake. Bug-fix-releases are still happening, as 1.7.x. There is NO need to bump version-numbers and Apis without having anything interesting to show for.

    Seeing how the X-Server has been growing for a few years, there's always a lot of old code involved when something like XInput or pciaccess gets reworked, so I personally would love it if they would wait with their releases till all the infrastructure gets reworked to deal with the changes completely, instead of bothering with releases that do just enough of the transition to not break this to badly(for example XInput 1.5 vs 2.0)

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fabiank22 View Post
    This makes NO sense. Sorry, but X.org, whether you take only the X-Server or X.org, is at a point where the main thing people complain about is missing features/unstable performance.

    Let's try this from another viewpoint: What is your reason for upgrading to X-Server 1.7? Stability? Really? What got people excited was the possibilities of Multi-Pointer-X, and even that didn't make it completely.

    I don't really get upgrading for upgradings sake. Bug-fix-releases are still happening, as 1.7.x. There is NO need to bump version-numbers and Apis without having anything interesting to show for.

    Seeing how the X-Server has been growing for a few years, there's always a lot of old code involved when something like XInput or pciaccess gets reworked, so I personally would love it if they would wait with their releases till all the infrastructure gets reworked to deal with the changes completely, instead of bothering with releases that do just enough of the transition to not break this to badly(for example XInput 1.5 vs 2.0)
    In the case of fglrx, I have some right to complain, as I have paid for the hardware (even if my pet OS isn't officially supported)

    In the case of X, I am not so sure to whom I have the "right" to complain. Still, stability, performance, and features are also on my wishlist.

    The "X-men" need support, not complaints.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sabriah View Post
    Because I have worked as a developer and I know hard it can be to deliver...
    You completely and utterly missed my point, I think. My point was that you should be more forgiving on X.org developers. Everyone seems to be expecting pretty much miracles from them, then settling for a lot less for eg AMD/ATi developers. (who you took as an example for monthly releases and I took as an example of how monthly releases do not actually work) How is that fair? Why should we expect X.org developers somehow magically would start getting features done if they got strict deadlines even though no one else does? (the developers who have strict deadlines release unfinished and immature software, period; you have to wait for them to finish what they're doing and then release, not the other way around)
    Last edited by nanonyme; 09-27-2009 at 10:39 AM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    You completely and utterly missed my point, I think. My point was that you should be more forgiving on X.org developers. Everyone seems to be expecting pretty much miracles from them, then settling for a lot less for eg AMD/ATi developers. (who you took as an example for monthly releases and I took as an example of how monthly releases do not actually work) How is that fair? Why should we expect X.org developers somehow magically would start getting features done if they got strict deadlines even though no one else does? (the developers who have strict deadlines release unfinished and immature software, period; you have to wait for them to finish what they're doing and then release, not the other way around)
    Ok, so we agreed all the time!

    Yes, and the point I was trying to make that if you release at regular intervals users can anticipate their releases. If it includes some feature, fine. If not, they can wait if they like to.

    The point would be that there would always be a release, every six months or so. If a feature is not included in time. Ok, fine, we'll have to wait another six months, even if the feature was finished a few days later.

    Besides, even in a monthly release schedule, ATI does have a fairly wide window of 30 days. Some months it is released around the 21st, other months earlier or later. It is not carved in stone.

    Follow the release cycle of of KDE 4. I think that was a nice example of how it could be done.

    If a feature wasn't ready in time it was pushed to the next release.

    "Early and often" seems to be the mantra - since a long time http://www.catb.org/~esr//writings/h...r/ar01s04.html.

    It appears you get more gradual changes using that style, and less api changes etc. But, I haven't followed the development of X too well to really judge. Armchair Judge? Maybe.
    Last edited by sabriah; 09-28-2009 at 12:20 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,578

    Default

    Guess what kind of feedback X.org would start getting from Michael if they started going with the "release early, release often" mantra?
    "Yet another X.org monthly release with no new features." "No significant features this month either." etc. So instead of complaining that X.org doesn't do releases we'd start getting complaints that releases don't contain anything. Solution: shut the people up and let developers do their stuff.
    Last edited by nanonyme; 09-27-2009 at 12:19 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Guess what kind of feedback X.org would start getting from Michael if they started going with the "release early, release often" mantra?
    "Yet another X.org monthly release with no new features." "No significant features this month either." etc. So instead of complaining that X.org doesn't do releases we'd start getting complaints that releases don't contain anything. Solution: shut the people up and let developers do their stuff.
    Here we agree again!

    BTW, I wonder what kind of suits the X-men have. Hmmm...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •