----- Original Message ----- > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Kushal Das <kushaldas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> What are the options? Push 21 back 3 months, and then 8 month instead of 6 > >> month intervals? > > > > May be pushing 21 for whole 6 months, which will give enough time to > > concentrate to the existing issues. Another option can be with keeping > > same 6months time frame but saying instead of adding 20 new features, > > we will fix > > existing issues to have a solid release. > > What exactly do you want to fix? And how do features block you from fixing > it? > This is all to hand wavy. > And you cannot force volunteers to just work on bugfixes for 6 months > instead of working on new stuff if that's what you mean. (that would > be pretty pointless anyway). > > The only conclusion I get out of this thread is that releng is > apparently unable to cope with there tasks while making progress on > improving stuff (whatever this improvements are). > So we need more resources (people) working on releng stuff not force > everyone to just fix bugs for 6 months. It's not only about releng but QA and other teams - time between F19 and F20 was pretty short. And yes, we're still trying to get into the pace again after F18 that cost us a lot... But if we really want to do bigger changes how we produce things, we really need time for it. For bugfixing - as I said, there's a chance of bigger bundled update accompanied with QA effort that could serve as a replacement for regular release (so it could contain a limited set of new stuff too). Jaroslav > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
