Fedora Core 5 Test 3 Slip

[Mike A. Harris]

Lamont R. Peterson wrote:
> On Saturday 04 February 2006 04:19am, Igor Jagec wrote:
> 
>>Jesse Keating wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Enough with the birthdays already.  :)
> 
> How about if we slip FC5 just a little more so that it is released in May on 
> FC4's 1st anniversary? That would give us enough time to make a test4 and 
> maybe even a test5 release to iron out all the new X bugs.
> 
> hehe, just kidding.

That's not too bad of an idea, however if we do that, X11R7.1 is
scheduled for May, so we should wait until April.  ;)

On a serious note though, before anyone asks....  Since 7.1 is going
to be out very soon after FC5, there is a very strong likelyhood that
we'll update FC5 to X11R7.1 sometime after it is released.  And since
it is all modular, that might happen to individual pieces over time
instead of one big plop.

Ah, the glory of modular X. ;)

>>>during that time to make sure FC5 is a great release for YOUR birthday
>>>(;
>>
>>It's gonna be a great release. It's been a long time since FC4 was
>>released... I suppose that RHEL5 will be based on FC5 since it took as
>>much time to build it. Maybe it is a good idea to make release cycle to
>>one year instead of 4 to 6 months as it is said it's going to be for
>>Fedora Core.

I think our 6 month cycle plan remains, but will likely vary depending
on various factors.  I'd like to see it be a 9 month cycle that can
vary earlier or later though, but that's just my personal opinion.  I
dunno who else would agree with me on that. ;)


> After 2-1/2 years, I think Fedora development has all but proved that 6 months 
> is the minimum time between good distribution releases.  It doesn't look like 
> we're ever going to see 4 months.

I'd definitely agree with that.  4 months would give time to update
packages, file off some rough edges, do almost no development, and
release.  That's no good. ;)

> I'm not saying that 4 months isn't possible, just that the track record seems 
> to show that 6 months is the "right" timeframe.

I'd say "minimum" timeframe. ;)

> I'm not saying that 4 months is a bad goal.  On the contrary, I think setting 
> tough goals is (usually) a good thing; it spurs us all on to accomplish 
> things we never have before.

A 4 month release would give me a heart attack I think.  :)



-- 
Mike A. Harris  *  Open Source Advocate  *  http://mharris.ca
                       Proud Canadian.