On Tue, 23 May 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 07:54 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
Not all of us involved.
I quite liked the 9 month schedule.
Open mouth, insert foot. I didn't mean to say all involved, that was
supposed to be 'most' or even 'some'.
In reality, it did NOT turn into 6 months of changes and 3 months of
fixes, it turned into 8~9 months of changes and a couple hectic weeks of
trying to fix crap. Hence the slips and the delays and whatnot.
Maybe if we had been more draconic about development freezes and freezes
in general it would have ended up different. But alas we weren't and
thus we had a TON more changed crap at the end of it all to try and
polish up and get out.
Even if we did stop at 6 months, this would mean that for all intensive
purposes we're releasing 3 month old software into our 'early adopters'
community. That wouldn't fly much either (;
If development freezes were honored (3 months development, 3 months
bugfixing) you'd be shipping that "ancient" 3 month old software anyway.
And no, I don't actually want *that* tight devel freezes, but in FC5 case
the last minute Mono rush-in was BAD. Who cares (at least I dont) if new
leafnode packages are added late in the game but as the shoe-thingy
affected Gnome...
- Panu -
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
