On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:09:05AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > 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? Any duration will get people arguing whether it's too long or too short. To me 6 months is a 80/20 equilibrium point, plus it makes very easy to memorize and predict releases (one for the Summer, one for the Winter). Just skip one release, branch and you get 9 months to work without being disturbed too much. It seems to me that a fair amount of users follow that pattern too and don't update every 6 months, but every year or so (that would be an interesting poll to set up on the fedora web site I think). Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/ veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
