Am Dienstag, den 23.05.2006, 12:03 +0100 schrieb Paul Howarth: > Axel Thimm wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 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. That my impression, too. But the back-an-forth with FC4, FC5 and FC6 seems to have confused a lot of people afaics -- we IMHO should try to avoid that in the future. That's why I'd prefer if we could have a long term planing with a fixed six month release interval. E.g. always release one week after each Gnome-Release (that would be sencond half or march and september). If there are reasons that force a slip then delay the release of "n" by one, two or three weeks (or even more), but that should not effect the schedule of release "n+1". Just my 2 cent. CU thl -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
