[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fab] looking at our surrent state a bit

Jesse Keating schrieb:
> On Friday 03 November 2006 10:19, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> No, I think we should align out schedule to Gnome, as it is a crucial
>> part of our product.
> Uh, we do,

Nope (see below). Just for referece: Gnome always sips mid-march and
mid-september. Since quite some time now.

> or more specifically they align their schedule to our releases most 
> often.

And that's why I think we should have a long term release planing like
Ubuntu and Gnome. We don't even have a schedule for FC7 currently, so
GCC or X.org are not able to align their schedule to our releases...

> Already stated why this is a very bad idea.  You get a '2' in the name, and 
> you get to look at all your broken extensions.  Not fun.

I'm not saying we need it now. But a good solution for it might be
"We'll ship FF 2.0 as a update for FC6 when it's a bit more matured and
most extensions are ported; so at the end of the year probably. Until
then you can get it in this special FC-6 add-on repo located on ours
servers at ...."

>> AIGLX in FC5, 
> Decision made by the maintainer.

That's a excuse I hear to often these days (see gutenprint for example).
That why I'd like to see a Fedora Core Steering Commitee that jumps in
now and then.

>> Gnome Update in FC4)
> FC4 is well Legacy now, and even at the time, it isn't desireable to make a 
> huge update to that old of a release.  (you were talking about the timeframe
> where FC5 was live, FC6 was in development, and FC4 was still getting some 
> updates?) 

No. FC4 shipped with Gnome 2.10. 2.12 was never shipped by FC. 2.14 was
in FC5. That 2.12 never was shipped in FC really sucked.

> Personally I want to see a more formal update policy.

+1 (also for Extras), but there needs to be room for decisions on a
case-by-cases basis.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]