On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:55:59AM +0200, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote: > I disagree with the request for stretching, and agree with the > comparison with GNOME's model. Look at how Sarge went down. Seth's not proposing an indefinite "stretching". Just a longer expected timeframe -- still *very* short. > 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 This proposal is approximately the same timeframe per release, except it requires Fedora developers to support more releases at once. > 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. There's a reason for that -- it lets the developers focus on the new instead of the much less interesting and exciting drudgery of maintaining the old releases. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> Current office temperature: 76 degrees Fahrenheit. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
