On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 12:30 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 04:27 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > > > > How would you know? Red hat has never had a release cycle of anything > > > other than 6 months. You seem to be making an assertion you can't > > > support. I'm suggesting we try something to see if it helps. > > > > Sure we do internally... RHEL so far has had an 18 months cycle > > Nice of y'all to allow yourself longer release cycles while denying it > to fedora community developers. I agree with Seth here. A longer release cycle could prove to be very beneficial. 18 months would be too long for Fedora, but 9 might work out very nicely. What's the harm in trying it for a release and seeing how it goes? > > > and it does work by branching at some point and doing the work we want > > to do on the community base until it is ready to release. Like you we > > need more time to integrate changes and stabilize than what the 6month > > cycle allows, we also have the need to integrate most of it back into > > the main cycle, and not disrupt it. It requires planning, branching, > > merging, but it's doable and I think we can support that model from a > > technical standpoint since we are over the fourth iteration on that model. > > I think we don't have nearly enough volunteers or infrastructure to say > that the fourth iteration of that model is viable. I've watched the > amount of stuff that needs to be done at the fedora extras steering > committee meetings and it's non-trivial and needs to be done ASAP. As an aside, perhaps the FESCO meeting agendas/minutes should be publicly available somewhere. Then people who want to volunteer for stuff like that would have a place to look. At the very least, it provides the community with an idea of what's happening and where things are headed. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
