Hi, > > Once upon a time, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > > What about stretching out the dev cycle from 3months dev + 3 months of > > > testing to something more like 6 months of dev + 3 months of testing. > > > > How about deciding what the major goals of the next release should be > > (within reason of course), estimating about how long it should take to > > meet those goals, and then add in whatever else seems reasonable in the > > given time frame? > > Because the decision was explicitly made when the Fedora project started > to do releases at regular intervals rather than based on feature-driven > milestones. This is the model Gnome has used with a good bit of success. I disagree with the request for stretching, and agree with the comparison with GNOME's model. Look at how Sarge went down. In contrast, I'd like to propose another idea - keep FC (x-2) alive until a month after FC (x) comes out. This would make people feel they don't need to upgrade every six months, but can do it every year, if they feel it is a real issue. I find it a little silly how currently FC (x - 2) gets eol'd around the time FC (x) is starting to churn out test releases. Thomas Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> Don't shut your eyes just yet Don't even open your mouth just yet Because there's things you've got to see There's things you won't believe of me <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
