On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 12:41:18PM -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > If you're saying that you believe 5 months wasn't long enough - I > suppose that is fair... but the reason there was only 5 months wasn't > by design - it was due to schedule slippage. As far as impact - I It was by design, though — for a while, when a schedule slipped, we planned the next schedule as 6 or 7 months from the actual release. This time, we tried to keep it to October even though the previous release had slipped, resulting in the short schedule. I'm the person who pushed for that (because of the value of calendar consistency), and I'm now saying it was a mistake. > still not sure what that means? Software is constantly being updated, > evolving. How does running older versions of software increase > "impact"? I'm not saying running older versions increases it -- I'm saying I don't think new versions at the rate we're putting them out are necessary to get it. > I don't believe we are "wasting" work. Regardless of their lifespan, > all releases are appreciated and valued. They don't have to "age" > like a wine. If you're trying to say resources are limited and the > current release schedule has become unsustainable - that is another > issue entirely. Right, that's another issue. > I didn't say you said "fickleness". That is my own opinion of the > state of our media. I was trying to say that you can't rely on media > coverage. Yes I understand a new release is also a marketing event. I > just don't believe the theoretical attention span of the media should > impact our decisions. Okay. I have a different opinion. :) -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
