Fedora 11 schedule proposal

[Paul W. Frields]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 02:25:18PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 14:22 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Jeremy Katz (katzj at redhat.com) said: 
> > > > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage
> > > > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week?
> > > 
> > > We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on
> > > track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close
> > > for the second one :)
> > 
> > Sure, but I'm not sure pretending we won't slip is viable. If we do
> > take the 'attempt to make it up over two cycles' method, then this proposed
> > schedule is only a 1-1/2 to 2 week adjustment to that. So I don't think
> > it's that far out of line.
> 
> Until we slip from the schedule, at which point it's more like 4-5
> weeks.

I think this assertion assumes the more granular revision in freeze
periods is not going to have any effect on slippage.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20081112/b255208d/attachment.sig>