development cycle (Was: Re: What's New in Fedora Core 5 Test2 (LWN): Some comments)

Rahul Sundaram sundaram at
Mon Jan 30 10:26:13 UTC 2006



There was no official statement that the release cycle was permanently 
> extended either. 

Exactly. "

How do you propose to solve that?. Do press releases?

>>Fedora is not solely focussed on the desktop.
>Sure. But a defined long term release cycle has a lot of benefits --
>look at Gnome.
Red Hat developers have been involved in the original decision to move 
over to a time based release structure. However there are differences 
between GNOME and FedoraGNOME is typically not consumed by users 
directly. . They can afford to do fixes in a .1 release. If you look at 
Fedora, there is a rough time based release but it is not rigid to 
accomodate various changes that come up in every development cycle.

>No -- but if we sync up to the same schedule maybe gcc will sync to it,
>too. Or xorg, kde. Or maybe even the kernel (okay, that's unlikely). 
You are talking about a scenario which is highly unlikely on the whole. 
It simply doesnt make any sense for many projects to switch into a six 
month release cycle.

>Sure. But the reason why I replied to your initial mail in this thread
>was that there was a lack of a defined statement about the Fedora
>release cycle. And that's more a marketing problem afaics.
I dont consider that as a documentation problem as such. One attempt to 
fix it is the weekly reports.


Fedora Bug Triaging -

More information about the Fedora-marketing-list mailing list