On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff <joe@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> because first new anaconda was approved and integration >> all over the distribution started and after that damage >> was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready" > > > So what you're saying is, it was approved before it was ready. Judging from > what else you wrote, the devs didn't realize it when they approved it. This > suggests to me that approval came too early in the process, before proper > testing was done and that important parts of the program hadn't been > completed. If so, is there anything that can be done to prevent this from > happening yet again? I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with Ubuntu and Fedora. Some distros use a two year release which is too long. One or two use an annual release which i think is about right... development and testing can fully take place. Why not consider an annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take place? james -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
