What next?

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:55:59AM +0200, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> I disagree with the request for stretching, and agree with the
> comparison with GNOME's model.  Look at how Sarge went down.

Seth's not proposing an indefinite "stretching". Just a longer expected
timeframe -- still *very* short.

> In contrast, I'd like to propose another idea - keep FC (x-2) alive
> until a month after FC (x) comes out.  This would make people feel they

This proposal is approximately the same timeframe per release, except it
requires Fedora developers to support more releases at once.

> don't need to upgrade every six months, but can do it every year, if
> they feel it is a real issue.  I find it a little silly how currently FC
> (x - 2) gets eol'd around the time FC (x) is starting to churn out test
> releases.

There's a reason for that -- it lets the developers focus on the new
instead of the much less interesting and exciting drudgery of maintaining
the old releases.

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm at mattdm.org        <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>                <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 76 degrees Fahrenheit.