On 10/31/2012 05:59 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 10/31/2012 09:56 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
* Jesse Keating, Jeremy Katz, and others who helped shape the current
policy
and theory of our release schedule felt that the 6 month release
cycle was
fine but that certain features were going to take longer to develop.
Those would need to be developed and not enter into Fedora until
they were
close enough that they could be completed during that cycle.
- No matter what we do to try and increase the development cycle
within
a release, there's always going to be issues that take longer
than the
release that we need to deal with. Perhaps, we just need to be
better
about making people follow this model.
I'm not entirely sure what I felt then, but I'm certainly open to a
longer release cycle. In fact I'm very much in favor of one, one that
puts more time between "feature complete" and the actual alpha
release. All too often we see features crash land right at the
deadline, and any software that has to integrate across a lot of
pieces (like anaconda) gets stuck trying to account for all these
changes in a very limited time frame, only to be hindered quickly by a
freeze process.
I think we need to give developers more time for feature integration
after the feature freeze.
We ( QA community ) would benefit from a longer release cycle since we
need more time to properly test "features" and other vital components
and arguably the QA part of an feature should FESCO delegate to QA
community to oversee and handle...
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
