On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:03:30PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >I just checked with the schedule for FC6 in the wiki. I thought FC > >was targetting 9 months cycles, and FC6 looks like a 6 month cycle. > > > >Just curious what the targeted general schedule is, what FC6's > >concrete schedule is (e.g. if the general schedule is 9 month, why > >go 6 months for FC6?), and closely related to this, what the > >relationship RHEL5 to FC5/FC6 will be. > > > >My guess is that having an FC6 shortly before RHEL5 may be nice for > >checking some post-FC5 items that will have made it into RHEL5 (for > >instance xen and storage/cluster/gfs improvements). Is that the > >master plan? > > > >BTW in case it sounds like I would mind either way, I don't. ;) > > > >Maybe this has been discussed here before, but then I missed it > >when searching for "schedule" and "month" in subject lines. > > I thought the 9 months for FC5 was always a one-off in order to get > the necessary installer infrastructure work done, and the plan was > always for 6-monthly releases in general. I remember at the beginning of the FC5 cycle some developers that raised concerns against the 3 months development + 3 months bug fixing, and pleaded for a 6+3 model, e.g. effectively doubling the development efforts per cycle, while the total cycle extends for only 50%. It also later went through the press that Fedora was going 9 months instead of 6 months, so I assumed it had been set in stone as such. :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp2tvijN13cZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
