development cycle (Was: Re: What's New in Fedora Core 5 Test2 (LWN): Some comments)
Rahul Sundaram
sundaram at fedoraproject.org
Mon Jan 30 10:26:13 UTC 2006
Hi
"
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.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/WeeklyReports.
--
Rahul
Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
More information about the Fedora-marketing-list
mailing list