Back to 6 month schedule?

[Panu Matilainen]

On Tue, 23 May 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 07:54 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>>
>> Not all of us involved.
>>
>> I quite liked the 9 month schedule.
>
>
> Open mouth, insert foot.  I didn't mean to say all involved, that was
> supposed to be 'most' or even 'some'.
>
> In reality, it did NOT turn into 6 months of changes and 3 months of
> fixes, it turned into 8~9 months of changes and a couple hectic weeks of
> trying to fix crap.  Hence the slips and the delays and whatnot.
>
> Maybe if we had been more draconic about development freezes and freezes
> in general it would have ended up different.  But alas we weren't and
> thus we had a TON more changed crap at the end of it all to try and
> polish up and get out.
>
> Even if we did stop at 6 months, this would mean that for all intensive
> purposes we're releasing 3 month old software into our 'early adopters'
> community.  That wouldn't fly much either (;

If development freezes were honored (3 months development, 3 months 
bugfixing) you'd be shipping that "ancient" 3 month old software anyway.

And no, I don't actually want *that* tight devel freezes, but in FC5 case 
the last minute Mono rush-in was BAD. Who cares (at least I dont) if new 
leafnode packages are added late in the game but as the shoe-thingy 
affected Gnome...

 	- Panu -