Wild and crazy times for the development tree

[Jeremy Katz]

On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 21:40 +0100, David Nielsen wrote:
> man, 20 03 2006 kl. 19:45 +0100, skrev Arjan van de Ven:
> > personally I think the current 9 month schedule wasn't too bad (ok the
> > end slipped too much but lets ignore that bit); it gives enough time to
> > do fundamental improvements. For fc6 it would be nice if boot speed was
> > further improved for example, and since initscripts are tricky and need
> > lots of testing... a bit of extra time would be neat
> 
> I tend to agree, the 9 month cycle worked wonderfully, Fedora Core 5 is
> by far the best release the Fedora Project has put out yet and as a
> tester I enjoyed having that extra time to see new fundamental changes
> take place and get bugs tracked down.

Realistically, I don't think the 9 month cycle really helped that much
except for one very specific case of the underlying installer changes.
And realistically, if it had been a six month cycle instead, those would
have been worked out then as well.  For everything else, if we had been
on a six month cycle, some of them would have made FC5 and some would
have made FC6.  But guess what, that's going to be true no matter _when_
you actually cut a release.  It's the price of doing releases more than
once every three years :-)

Jeremy