On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 03:59 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 02:25:26AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > > So my answer would be "if FC5 deadlines don't give you enough time to > > > complete a given piece of work, target FC6 instead". > > > > Not to be rude but why the hard headed attachment to 'WE MUST RELEASE > > EVERY 6 MONTHS'. The gnome people have recently said that new and > > interesting development has been stymied somewhat by that schedule and > > This does not reflect at all un understanding of the GNOME community > There is very strong backing for time based releases. There may be > people with a different viewpoint, but it's certainly not > "The gnome people". you're right. I misspoke. I was referring to what I had read in a series of blog entries on the subject. > The point is that most people/companies prefer a graceful gradual shift than > big point releases. This does not prevent big change, but it forces to > still release and take into account the evolution. To me the counter example of > Debian stable release shows clearly why a time based release schedule > is very important for the community in general. > You think your change will take too long to implement ? Then plan this over > the time frame of multiple releases, really ! I'm not arguing against a time based release. I'm arguing against the current time allotted for the release. So I think time based released are just fine - but not when it only allows about 2-3 months of actual time allotted to doing any development Can you see the distinction b/t the two? -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
