What next?

[Daniel Veillard]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:09:05AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> I'm not arguing against a time based release. I'm arguing against the
> current time allotted for the release. So I think time based released
> are just fine - but not when it only allows about 2-3 months of actual
> time allotted to doing any development
> 
> Can you see the distinction b/t the two?

  Any duration will get people arguing whether it's too long or too short.
To me 6 months is a 80/20 equilibrium point, plus it makes very easy to
memorize and predict releases (one for the Summer, one for the Winter).
  Just skip one release, branch and you get 9 months to work without being
disturbed too much. It seems to me that a fair amount of users follow that
pattern too and don't update every 6 months, but every year or so (that would
be an interesting poll to set up on the fedora web site I think).

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/
veillard at redhat.com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/