On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 21:40 +0100, David Nielsen wrote: > man, 20 03 2006 kl. 19:45 +0100, skrev Arjan van de Ven: > > personally I think the current 9 month schedule wasn't too bad (ok the > > end slipped too much but lets ignore that bit); it gives enough time to > > do fundamental improvements. For fc6 it would be nice if boot speed was > > further improved for example, and since initscripts are tricky and need > > lots of testing... a bit of extra time would be neat > > I tend to agree, the 9 month cycle worked wonderfully, Fedora Core 5 is > by far the best release the Fedora Project has put out yet and as a > tester I enjoyed having that extra time to see new fundamental changes > take place and get bugs tracked down. Realistically, I don't think the 9 month cycle really helped that much except for one very specific case of the underlying installer changes. And realistically, if it had been a six month cycle instead, those would have been worked out then as well. For everything else, if we had been on a six month cycle, some of them would have made FC5 and some would have made FC6. But guess what, that's going to be true no matter _when_ you actually cut a release. It's the price of doing releases more than once every three years :-) Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
