On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:15 -0400, Chris Ball wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:22:46, Jose' Matos <jamatos@xxxxxxxx> said: > 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. the lesson learnt only by those people INSIDE red hat. it was not a universally acknowledged lesson - it just made life difficult for folks inside the fenceline. I'll live with a 6 month schedule but let's not revise history overly-much, okay? -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
