Back to 6 month schedule?

[seth vidal]

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:15 -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:22:46, Jose' Matos <jamatos at fc.up.pt> said:
> I'm not pushing for either schedule, but some points (mostly from
> FUDCon) on why using a six-month schedule is not "crazy", and in
> fact seems to be becoming de facto:
> 
>    * GNOME does it, as mentioned.
>    * Xorg does it.
>    * OpenOffice does it.
>    * GCC is on a yearly cycle, so we'd pick up a new release roughly
>      every second time.
>    * The farther our releases are out of sync with these, the more
>      work we have to do.
>    * The lesson learnt from FC5 was that it hurts more than it
>      helps us to have more than six months for a release.

the lesson learnt only by those people INSIDE red hat.

it was not a universally acknowledged lesson - it just made life
difficult for folks inside the fenceline.

I'll live with a 6 month schedule but let's not revise history
overly-much, okay?

-sv