Back to 6 month schedule?

[Jesse Keating]

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 12:54 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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. 

FC5's 9(10, 11) month schedule was an experiment in adjusting the
schedule to see if it helped in our release.  While it did allow for
some larger changes to make it through, it multiplied the amount of
little changes at the same time.  It created a very bad situation for
those of us trying to do any kind of QA on the distro before it went out
the door.  For all those involved, we felt that the 9 month schedule
hurt more than it helped and we're back to the tried and true 6 month
schedule, with slips here and there (hopefully not).

Sorry for the confusion.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060523/2042322a/attachment.sig>