What next?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 02:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Vander
Stichele:
> > > Once upon a time, seth vidal <skvidal at phy.duke.edu> said:
> > > > What about stretching out the dev cycle from 3months dev + 3 months of
> > > > testing to something more like 6 months of dev + 3 months of testing.
> > > 
> > > How about deciding what the major goals of the next release should be
> > > (within reason of course), estimating about how long it should take to
> > > meet those goals, and then add in whatever else seems reasonable in the
> > > given time frame?
> > 
> > Because the decision was explicitly made when the Fedora project started
> > to do releases at regular intervals rather than based on feature-driven
> > milestones. This is the model Gnome has used with a good bit of success.
> 
> I disagree with the request for stretching, and agree with the
> comparison with GNOME's model.  Look at how Sarge went down.
> 
> In contrast, I'd like to propose another idea - keep FC (x-2) alive
> until a month after FC (x) comes out.  This would make people feel they
> don't need to upgrade every six months, but can do it every year, if
> they feel it is a real issue.  I find it a little silly how currently FC
> (x - 2) gets eol'd around the time FC (x) is starting to churn out test
> releases.

++

If fedora-legacy [cw]ould provide updates at the usual place for
fedora-core updates this might not me needed.