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

Re: What next?



On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 04:27 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 03:08:40AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > 
> > > Projects are getting larger and larger and need more time to develop.
> > > Increasing the release cycle every year or two isn't the answer.
> > 
> > How would you know? Red hat has never had a release cycle of anything
> > other than 6 months. You seem to be making an assertion you can't
> > support. I'm suggesting we try something to see if it helps.
> 
>   Sure we do internally... RHEL so far has had an 18 months cycle

Nice of y'all to allow yourself longer release cycles while denying it
to fedora community developers.

> and it does work by branching at some point and doing the work we want
> to do on the community base until it is ready to release. Like you we
> need more time to integrate changes and stabilize than what the 6month
> cycle allows, we also have the need to integrate most of it back into
> the main cycle, and not disrupt it. It requires planning, branching,
> merging, but it's doable and I think we can support that model from a
> technical standpoint since we are over the fourth iteration on that model.

I think we don't have nearly enough volunteers or infrastructure to say
that the fourth iteration of that model is viable. I've watched the
amount of stuff that needs to be done at the fedora extras steering
committee meetings and it's non-trivial and needs to be done ASAP.

-sv




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