What next?

seth vidal skvidal at phy.duke.edu
Fri Jun 3 08:09:05 UTC 2005


On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 03:59 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 02:25:26AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > 
> > > So my answer would be "if FC5 deadlines don't give you enough time to 
> > > complete a given piece of work, target FC6 instead".
> > 
> > Not to be rude but why the hard headed attachment to 'WE MUST RELEASE
> > EVERY 6 MONTHS'. The gnome people have recently said that new and
> > interesting development has been stymied somewhat by that schedule and
> 
>   This does not reflect at all un understanding of the GNOME community
> There is very strong backing for time based releases. There may be
> people with a different viewpoint, but it's certainly not 
> "The gnome people".

you're right. I misspoke. I was referring to what I had read in a series
of blog entries on the subject.

> The point is that most people/companies prefer a graceful gradual shift than
> big point releases. This does not prevent big change, but it forces to
> still release and take into account the evolution. To me the counter example of
> Debian stable release shows clearly why a time based release schedule
> is very important for the community in general. 
> You think your change will take too long to implement ? Then plan this over
> the time frame of multiple releases, really ! 

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?

-sv





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list