On Saturday 04 February 2006 01:06pm, Mike A. Harris wrote: > Lamont R. Peterson wrote: > > On Saturday 04 February 2006 04:19am, Igor Jagec wrote: > >>Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > Enough with the birthdays already. :) > > > > How about if we slip FC5 just a little more so that it is released in May > > on FC4's 1st anniversary? That would give us enough time to make a test4 > > and maybe even a test5 release to iron out all the new X bugs. > > > > hehe, just kidding. > > That's not too bad of an idea, however if we do that, X11R7.1 is > scheduled for May, so we should wait until April. ;) > > On a serious note though, before anyone asks.... Since 7.1 is going > to be out very soon after FC5, there is a very strong likelyhood that > we'll update FC5 to X11R7.1 sometime after it is released. And since > it is all modular, that might happen to individual pieces over time > instead of one big plop. > > Ah, the glory of modular X. ;) Cool. > >>>during that time to make sure FC5 is a great release for YOUR birthday > >>>(; > >> > >>It's gonna be a great release. It's been a long time since FC4 was > >>released... I suppose that RHEL5 will be based on FC5 since it took as > >>much time to build it. Maybe it is a good idea to make release cycle to > >>one year instead of 4 to 6 months as it is said it's going to be for > >>Fedora Core. > > I think our 6 month cycle plan remains, but will likely vary depending > on various factors. I'd like to see it be a 9 month cycle that can > vary earlier or later though, but that's just my personal opinion. I > dunno who else would agree with me on that. ;) Now that you mention it, I like it. I would support the idea. > > After 2-1/2 years, I think Fedora development has all but proved that 6 > > months is the minimum time between good distribution releases. It > > doesn't look like we're ever going to see 4 months. > > I'd definitely agree with that. 4 months would give time to update > packages, file off some rough edges, do almost no development, and > release. That's no good. ;) > > > I'm not saying that 4 months isn't possible, just that the track record > > seems to show that 6 months is the "right" timeframe. > > I'd say "minimum" timeframe. ;) You are correct; much better. > > I'm not saying that 4 months is a bad goal. On the contrary, I think > > setting tough goals is (usually) a good thing; it spurs us all on to > > accomplish things we never have before. > > A 4 month release would give me a heart attack I think. :) LOL. OK, in that case, should we (not meaning me, as I have to real "say" in anything here) change the "official" copy that says 4-6 months release cycle? -- Lamont R. Peterson <lamont@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Senior Instructor Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/ ] GPG Key fingerprint: F98C E31A 5C4C 834A BCAB 8CB3 F980 6C97 DC0D D409
Attachment:
pgpywM7rxJrxa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
