Update: We'll be having discussions over the next few weeks to figure out how we can accommodate Lifecycle work without interrupting the Fedora release cadence. That includes in Brno, where we can meet up f2f with people working on parallel projects in automation, CI, and so on. We may also be able to grab additional people to do work here -- so this doesn't automatically equate to "we have to do more with less/the same people." After talking with the Council as well as some folks who are depending on the cadence, like IoT, it was clear we need to look at this option. For now, I intend to remove the cadence change from the objective requirements, unless more specific reasons why it has to happen become clear. On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:05 PM Randy Barlow <bowlofeggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 18:19 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > And why do we need to stop the presses to do that? This is entirely > > orthogonal to distribution development and can be done in parallel. > > The problem is that the people who do the work to get the release done > are the same people who would need to do the retooling work, so there > is a resource conflict. > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
