On 05/02/2016 09:12 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 05/02/2016 02:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote: > >> The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is >> very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as >> much as possible. That is the main motivation here. > In other words sacrificing quality for marketing reasons - Utterly poor :( > It's not sacrificing quality. Mass rebuilds require a great deal of engineering coordination. We're requesting that such coordination happens in the F26 development cycle instead, so we don't end up having another long cycle. There is strong engineering value in having two releases per year: release early, release often. There are many projects that develop through Fedora that get thrown into disarray when our cycle gets too far out of whack (prominent examples being GNOME and glibc). So given that we needed to extend the F24 timeframe early on (and also had a couple slips), FESCo agreed to shorten F25 in response so that we can still deliver the autumn releases of key projects (without having to re-consider the updates policy like we did for GNOME 3.14->3.16 during the "Year Almost Without Fedora"). All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC, glibc, etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This announcement was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we missed telling anyone directly.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
