Fedora Desktop on XO
gregsmitholpc at gmail.com
Tue Jan 6 16:28:36 EST 2009
We are definitely behind where I would like to be at this stage.
However, we'll only move the date when we must and we'll only do it to
improve quality or possibly to include a customer critical feature.
We wont move the date to allow in major new features (e.g. new file
system) so there's no room to add things assuming we will slip.
Lastly, if we have to move the date, I only want to do it once. That
means we only pick a new date when we know we can hit it. I heard your
concerns in the last two 9.1 meetings but so far I don't have the
evidence either way to make any changes.
In short, the plan is the plan until it changes. So far, no change.
Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:19:52PM -0800, Deepak Saxena wrote:
>> On Jan 06 2009, at 14:42, Chris Ball was caught saying:
>>> > I think I missed the previous conversation, re: estimate , but I'm
>>> > thinking that swap will have significant impact on the lifetime of
>>> > the flash chip. With only 256MiB of RAM, we are bound to swap a
>>> > lot. I'd feel more comfortable if we did flash-wide wear leveling
>>> > using UBI and created a swap partition on to pof that.
>>> That's fine with me too. Are we still planning on moving to UBI for
>>> 9.1? If not, maybe we can work out how to get swap files working on
>>> JFFS2 (where they would be wear-leveled)?
>> At this point, with < 2 months to desired release date,
> I don't think I know anyone who can convincingly argue that the March
> date is realistic, based on current rates of change and the remaining
> distance to the objective. I asked in the last (maybe even the last
> two?) status meetings to re-evaluate that date but was blown off. Make
> of that what you will.
More information about the Devel