Mike A. Harris wrote:
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. ;)
Perhaps this is just my own experience and impressions, but through the RHL releases and even as recently as the first couple of FC releases, I was always eagerly awaiting each new release because of various great improvements that made the system more generally usable. As tired as I would get of constantly rebuilding my machine, I would install most of the test releases just because I wanted those features that badly. With FC 3 & 4, my "appetite" for new releases has slowed down significantly, and the only reason I look for betas nowadays is usually support for newer hardware. In fact, the only two things I'm eager for in FC5 are a working suspend on my thinkpad, and evolution syncing on my Treo (neither of which looks is looking too promising anymore).
The point of all that is to say that I think as FC and Linux/OSS mature, there will be less demand for a steady stream of updates, and a 9-12 month release cycle would probably be quite acceptable. In fact, if things go the direction they seem to be, most people would probably prefer a longer-lived Core infrastructure, and look more to Extras for faster-moving updates to day-to-day apps.
Just my perception. DC -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
