On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:38:27AM -0400, Scott Schmit wrote: > > Given the current state of F18 I agree let's lengthen this release > > cycle up to 9 months and arguably we should lengthen the whole > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > development cycle to 9 months from now on. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I'm not sure that helps -- then people just get more ambitious with > their features and then what? Slow the release cycle down more? > Remember, the whole point of regular, strict-timed releases is to keep > things moving. +1 to this. With a 6 month cycle, if something isn't ready, slipping isn't usually earth-shattering. What I think we need is: - more cross-cycle planning. - a more functional rawhide which people can actually develop against. > Maybe we need to highlight those features that don't have a realistic > contingency plan (the work to revert and re-test is greater than the > work to complete) and call them out as "Critical Features" that we are > committing to slipping a release for if they don't work well, rather > than to revert them. +1 to this too. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
