Back to 6 month schedule?

[Rudolf Kastl]

2006/5/23, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com>:
> 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
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBEcvZm4v2HLvE71NURAlcGAJ4mgNB7n2Z8t9S0q4fkMtBH4VDaCQCfU9O0
> ssY1dr9GZAVYIFM0DxXe6ZI=
> =cmkJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
>

just like with any other project:

release early, release often

:))