>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:22:46, Jose' Matos <jamatos@xxxxxxxx> said:
> Not only that but it makes us dependent on an external
> entity. What if gnome developer decide (rightly IMO) that they need
> more time to release 3.0, do we change the schedule then?
> Should we re-sync after?
> That is crazy. :-)
I'm not pushing for either schedule, but some points (mostly from
FUDCon) on why using a six-month schedule is not "crazy", and in
fact seems to be becoming de facto:
* GNOME does it, as mentioned.
* Xorg does it.
* OpenOffice does it.
* GCC is on a yearly cycle, so we'd pick up a new release roughly
every second time.
* The farther our releases are out of sync with these, the more
work we have to do.
* The lesson learnt from FC5 was that it hurts more than it
helps us to have more than six months for a release.
As for getting GNOME packages the day before a release, no-one's
proposing that. GNOME 2.16's scheduled for release on September 6th,
our current schedule is to release on September 20th. Moreover,
GNOME's feature freezes line up with ours; it's not like there'll be
dramatically new code appearing while we're getting ready to push,
just fixes to the packages we'll have already been testing in Rawhide
for months. I think GNOME has a well-deserved reputation for not
screwing up freezes and release dates.
Ubuntu also uses six month GNOME-tied releases (though their last one
overran, so they'll make Edgy tighter to catch back up).
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <http://blog.printf.net/>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
