On Ter, 2016-12-20 at 11:20 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > 2. I really want releases to come at a known time every year, +/- two > weeks. Keeping to this with six month targets means that if > (when!) > we slip, the next release may only have five or four months to > bake. This is a problem IMHO. We shouldn't shorter the next release when we slip. But I remember when we got a big slip (because Fedora have one of the first releases that support secure boot), I saw a big concern with marketing , that was a bad image (the big slip) etc etc. So I think this rule was created by marketing/image of the Fedora to outside. So at least we should assume that we may do less 2 release per year and break the cycle of releases on May/Jun and Nov/Dec. One more note , I didn't agree that slip was bad , Fedora software is based in many upstream software if other parts slip we may/should also slip until get things stable. So maybe here is more a question of marketing to have more freedom in choice of the cycles. Maybe we can do a schedule with more 3 or 4 week and instead slip we could anticipate the release, I don't know just another idea. > This doesn't seem like it's the ideal for the above — maybe we can > get the engineering processes streamlined enough to make it > comfortable, but there's still the matter of marketing and the > rest. -- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
