> 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). Any change requires discussion. That's how change happens. I'm glad you feel good about a schedule that's twice a year, but I don't think that's enough time for what we're trying to get done. > 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). it doesn't work that way b/c some of the stuff I want to do would stall out plans for anaconda and pup, as well, it plays into a lot of doodads we want to get more time moving on. these projects are not islands unto themselves, they involve other plans too. Release coordination should be a discussion otherwise it's not really an integrated release. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
