Back to 6 month schedule?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am Dienstag, den 23.05.2006, 12:03 +0100 schrieb Paul Howarth:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 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.

That my impression, too. But the back-an-forth with FC4, FC5 and FC6
seems to have confused a lot of people afaics -- we IMHO should try to
avoid that in the future. That's why I'd prefer if we could have a long
term planing with a fixed six month release interval. E.g. always
release one week after each Gnome-Release (that would be sencond half or
march and september). If there are reasons that force a slip then delay
the release of "n" by one, two or three weeks (or even more), but that
should not effect the schedule of release "n+1".

Just my 2 cent.

CU
thl