Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 02:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Vander Stichele: > > > 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. ++ If fedora-legacy [cw]ould provide updates at the usual place for fedora-core updates this might not me needed. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
