On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 15:23 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > > > Nice of y'all to allow yourself longer release cycles while denying it > > > to fedora community developers. > > > > Not fair--see below. > > My dad used to say something about things not being fair.... > I get it that life's not fair. But you (and I) can be fair if we want to. > > I even think that your suggestion > > of a one-time-for-now 9 month cycle could make sense. > > > good. Heh--violent agreement. > > But the stuff that's required to hit an 18 month target is just Night And Day > > different. > > > I wasn't recommending an 18 month target, I was saying that I thought > lengthening the fc devel cycle would help us get some things done that > we just haven't had the time to do. OK. I misunderstood your proposal when you chose to quote off of Daniel's message about 18 month. Had you continued from the 9 month proposal, I would have continued reading, with interest. I apologize for misinterpreting your intent. > > [...] So I guess you can understand why I'm a bit pissed at > being talked down to by you when I sat in a meeting 3 months ago about > the fedora extras buildsystem process and I was the only one who > volunteered to work on it. Why? B/c everyone else was too busy. Hell, I > was too busy, too but I wanted it to happen and it appeared that was the > only way it was GOING to happen. > > Someone else set the objectives and I met them. You misinterpreted me. I was not talking about any shortcomings of the work on Fedora Core or Extras. I was talking about the perception that many people have about what it takes to hit an 18 month target. Since that wasn't your intent, my point was irrelevant. M -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
