[fab] looking at our surrent state a bit

[Jesse Keating]

On Friday 03 November 2006 10:58, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Nope (see below). Just for referece: Gnome always sips mid-march and
> mid-september. Since quite some time now.

And in order to pick up the latest gnome in a reasonable time our late march 
and late October releases weren't timed right?  We want to get their latest 
into our test releases and rawhide to get SOME testing before we go out the 
door.  How can this be any better?

> > or more specifically they align their schedule to our releases most
> > often.
>
> And that's why I think we should have a long term release planing like
> Ubuntu and Gnome. We don't even have a schedule for FC7 currently, so
> GCC or X.org are not able to align their schedule to our releases...

Mostly because we don't know how long it will take to accomplish some of the 
things we want to do.  We don't know what all we want to do this time around 
and what to punt for the next release.  We're "assuming" roughly 6 months, 
but being strictly tied down by a date kind of sucks for what we want to 
accomplish this time around.

> > Already stated why this is a very bad idea.  You get a '2' in the name,
> > and you get to look at all your broken extensions.  Not fun.
>
> I'm not saying we need it now. But a good solution for it might be
> "We'll ship FF 2.0 as a update for FC6 when it's a bit more matured and
> most extensions are ported; so at the end of the year probably. Until
> then you can get it in this special FC-6 add-on repo located on ours
> servers at ...."

How is this any different from what Chris Aillon did, with his FF2 builds made 
public?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- 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/20061103/453c4add/attachment.sig>