GNOME 2.14 for FC5?

[David Nielsen]

tor, 15 09 2005 kl. 16:19 -0400, skrev David Hollis:

> This could easily be a slippery slope.  If you push back a two-three
> weeks for Gnome, then you might find that the shiny new Firefox release
> is due out in two more days, so you might as well hang on for that, and
> then the next OO release might finally happen, and then there's a new
> kernel release...   And then shoot, if we can just hang on another four
> weeks, we have another shiny new Gnome release!  If 2.14 is far enough
> along, they might be able to ship with -pre or -rc type releases and
> just put out updates for final, but we may just be stuck with 2.12.
> That's not such a bad thing.

The kernel was updated up till the very last moment for FC4, getting a
new shiny GNOME is important for end users - we slipped releases for
this before, as long as we get GNOME 2.13 in rawhide early we could
ensure it would get proper testing.

Firefox and OOo should be fine with regards to the release schedules for
those projects. These projects don't release software on as strict a
schedule as GNOME does, feel free to go back in time and see how well
they stick to their schedule historically. 

For FC4 the kernel was upgraded till very late in the cycle and Dave has
been doing a great job releasing new kernels for the supported Fedora
releases. We wouldn't have to let the release slip, if it contains
important fixes and closes bugs it will be released as an update. 

It would be insane to do the same for GNOME, thus people would if FC5
ships with 2.12 rely on 3rd party repos to provide 2.14, adding another
variable to the bug equation (and yes users will lie about doing this
I've seen them do it).

But I will grant you that it's a slippery slope to continue to do it,
but we are talking 3 weeks for a core component with a good track record
of staying on schedule. The last time we slipped a week for the name to
clear legal, surely 3 weeks (I assume we'll need 1 week after final
package upload for hard freeze). I understand your concern but on this
one issue, presenting the users with the latest GNOME, our default
desktop, I think we can let it slip.

David *I'll beg and bribe relevant people with doughnuts if I have to*
Nielsen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dette er en digitalt underskrevet brevdel
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20050916/e2be44ed/attachment.sig>