[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 10:58, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Nope (see below). Just for referece: Gnome always sips mid-march and
>> mid-september. Since quite some time now.
> And in order to pick up the latest gnome in a reasonable time our late march 
> and late October releases weren't timed right?

They would, if we would stick to them:

FC1 -- 5 November 2003  - General Availability
FC2 -- 18 May 2004 - General Availability
FC3 -- 8 November 2004 - General Availability
FC4 -- 13 June 2005 - General Availability
FC5 -- 20 March 2006 - General Availability
FC6 -- 24 October 2006 - General Availability

Late march only once. I asked after FC5 on fedora-devel if we would
stick to "late march and late September" in the future again (+ some
delays if needed) and the answer was "no".

But if we get our release to "round about late march and late September"
in the future I'd be very glad.

>>> 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...
> Mostly because we don't know how long it will take to accomplish some of the 
> things we want to do.  We don't know what all we want to do this time around 
> and what to punt for the next release.  We're "assuming" roughly 6 months, 
> but being strictly tied down by a date kind of sucks for what we want to 
> accomplish this time around.

I think we should have a slightly more long-term plans. Sure, If release
X needs a delay, let's delay it a bit. But that should not effect X+1 to

>>> 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 ...."
> How is this any different from what Chris Aillon did, with his FF2 builds made 
> public?

- was not announced in the public (or I missed it)
- there is no "we probably ship it as update soon (when it's ready)"


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