Back to 6 month schedule?

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:03:30PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >I just checked with the schedule for FC6 in the wiki. I thought FC
> >was targetting 9 months cycles, and FC6 looks like a 6 month cycle.
> >
> >Just curious what the targeted general schedule is, what FC6's
> >concrete schedule is (e.g. if the general schedule is 9 month, why
> >go 6 months for FC6?), and closely related to this, what the
> >relationship RHEL5 to FC5/FC6 will be.
> >
> >My guess is that having an FC6 shortly before RHEL5 may be nice for
> >checking some post-FC5 items that will have made it into RHEL5 (for
> >instance xen and storage/cluster/gfs improvements). Is that the
> >master plan?
> >
> >BTW in case it sounds like I would mind either way, I don't. ;)
> >
> >Maybe this has been discussed here before, but then I missed it
> >when searching for "schedule" and "month" in subject lines.
> 
> I thought the 9 months for FC5 was always a one-off in order to get
> the necessary installer infrastructure work done, and the plan was
> always for 6-monthly releases in general.

I remember at the beginning of the FC5 cycle some developers that
raised concerns against the 3 months development + 3 months bug
fixing, and pleaded for a 6+3 model, e.g. effectively doubling the
development efforts per cycle, while the total cycle extends for only
50%.

It also later went through the press that Fedora was going 9 months
instead of 6 months, so I assumed it had been set in stone as such. :)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060523/b219810f/attachment.sig>