Am 04.11.2012 17:05, schrieb Tom Lane: > Simon Lukasik <isimluk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Currently, each Fedora release is kept alive for 13(+/-) months. There >> were dozens of threads about shortening or prolonging period -- but I am >> not sure if something like the following has been ever discussed: > >> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==1 -- is alive for 7 months. >> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==2 -- is alive for 7 months. >> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==0 -- is alive for 19 months. > >> Additionally, maintainers might be encouraged to push their system wide >> changes into N%3==1. As well as they might be encouraged to make the >> Fedora N%3==0 their best bread. > > Wouldn't that just encourage 99% of average users to ignore the > short-lived releases? It would sure be a damn tempting approach for me. > (Personally, all I want out of Fedora is a stable platform to get my > work done on, and the less often I have to reinstall, the better.) why is it not considered to change the release cycle from 6 to 12 months? for large changes this would be daramtically less pressure to any contributor and give time to polish the changes instead release them in hurry as often happended (systemd, GNOME3 as examples) IMHO there could be something done for non-destructive updates like LibreOffice as for the kernel which is a recent one since a really long time and it works mostly good
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
