On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 02:25:18PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 14:22 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Jeremy Katz (katzj@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage > > > > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week? > > > > > > We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on > > > track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close > > > for the second one :) > > > > Sure, but I'm not sure pretending we won't slip is viable. If we do > > take the 'attempt to make it up over two cycles' method, then this proposed > > schedule is only a 1-1/2 to 2 week adjustment to that. So I don't think > > it's that far out of line. > > Until we slip from the schedule, at which point it's more like 4-5 > weeks. I think this assertion assumes the more granular revision in freeze periods is not going to have any effect on slippage. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
pgpaqEbu6eetu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
