On 12.12.2006 16:46, Will Woods wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 07:12 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
With 4 weeks for each test cycle that would mean:
January 02 -- Test 1
January 30 -- Test 2
February 27 -- Test 3
March 27 -- Final Release
January 02 is probably to hard to reach, so we should cut one cycle from
four to three weeks. Which one? test3 maybe?
If you have to cut a week from one cycle, I'd make it Test1. Test1 is
the most likely to be broken in some unanticipated way, so it would be a
good idea to plan for a (slightly) quicker followup release to that one.
Also, I'd like to have a full 4 weeks after the No-Foolin'
Seriously-Guys This-Is-It Feature Freeze (Test3) to make sure we've got
the kinks worked out.
Does that sound reasonable?
Well, yes and no. I as a outsider got the impression that the freeze
after test3 is to long and to much people don't take it serious. *Maybe*
it would be better if test3 (or name it rc1?) would really be a hard
freeze. Something like "hey guys, test3 is really close to final; get
you shit in place by test3, there is not much time left after it to fix
stuff."
Well, as I said, that what it looks to me as an outsider.
CU
thl
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list
fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
