On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
