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

Re: Fedora Core 5 Test 3 Slip



On Saturday 04 February 2006 01:06pm, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> Lamont R. Peterson wrote:
> > On Saturday 04 February 2006 04:19am, Igor Jagec wrote:
> >>Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Enough with the birthdays already.  :)
> >
> > How about if we slip FC5 just a little more so that it is released in May
> > on FC4's 1st anniversary? That would give us enough time to make a test4
> > and maybe even a test5 release to iron out all the new X bugs.
> >
> > hehe, just kidding.
>
> That's not too bad of an idea, however if we do that, X11R7.1 is
> scheduled for May, so we should wait until April.  ;)
>
> On a serious note though, before anyone asks....  Since 7.1 is going
> to be out very soon after FC5, there is a very strong likelyhood that
> we'll update FC5 to X11R7.1 sometime after it is released.  And since
> it is all modular, that might happen to individual pieces over time
> instead of one big plop.
>
> Ah, the glory of modular X. ;)

Cool.

> >>>during that time to make sure FC5 is a great release for YOUR birthday
> >>>(;
> >>
> >>It's gonna be a great release. It's been a long time since FC4 was
> >>released... I suppose that RHEL5 will be based on FC5 since it took as
> >>much time to build it. Maybe it is a good idea to make release cycle to
> >>one year instead of 4 to 6 months as it is said it's going to be for
> >>Fedora Core.
>
> I think our 6 month cycle plan remains, but will likely vary depending
> on various factors.  I'd like to see it be a 9 month cycle that can
> vary earlier or later though, but that's just my personal opinion.  I
> dunno who else would agree with me on that. ;)

Now that you mention it, I like it.  I would support the idea.

> > After 2-1/2 years, I think Fedora development has all but proved that 6
> > months is the minimum time between good distribution releases.  It
> > doesn't look like we're ever going to see 4 months.
>
> I'd definitely agree with that.  4 months would give time to update
> packages, file off some rough edges, do almost no development, and
> release.  That's no good. ;)
>
> > I'm not saying that 4 months isn't possible, just that the track record
> > seems to show that 6 months is the "right" timeframe.
>
> I'd say "minimum" timeframe. ;)

You are correct; much better.

> > I'm not saying that 4 months is a bad goal.  On the contrary, I think
> > setting tough goals is (usually) a good thing; it spurs us all on to
> > accomplish things we never have before.
>
> A 4 month release would give me a heart attack I think.  :)

LOL.

OK, in that case, should we (not meaning me, as I have to real "say" in 
anything here) change the "official" copy that says 4-6 months release cycle?
-- 
Lamont R. Peterson <lamont gurulabs com>
Senior Instructor
Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/ ]
GPG Key fingerprint: F98C E31A 5C4C 834A BCAB  8CB3 F980 6C97 DC0D D409

Attachment: pgpTHCHF7Sroy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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