Am Dienstag, den 23.05.2006, 12:03 +0100 schrieb Paul Howarth:
Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just checked with the schedule for FC6 in the wiki. I thought FC was
> targetting 9 months cycles, and FC6 looks like a 6 month cycle.
>
> Just curious what the targeted general schedule is, what FC6's
> concrete schedule is (e.g. if the general schedule is 9 month, why go
> 6 months for FC6?), and closely related to this, what the relationship
> RHEL5 to FC5/FC6 will be.
>
> My guess is that having an FC6 shortly before RHEL5 may be nice for
> checking some post-FC5 items that will have made it into RHEL5 (for
> instance xen and storage/cluster/gfs improvements). Is that the master
> plan?
>
> BTW in case it sounds like I would mind either way, I don't. ;)
>
> Maybe this has been discussed here before, but then I missed it when
> searching for "schedule" and "month" in subject lines.
I thought the 9 months for FC5 was always a one-off in order to get the
necessary installer infrastructure work done, and the plan was always
for 6-monthly releases in general.
That my impression, too. But the back-an-forth with FC4, FC5 and FC6
seems to have confused a lot of people afaics -- we IMHO should try to
avoid that in the future. That's why I'd prefer if we could have a long
term planing with a fixed six month release interval. E.g. always
release one week after each Gnome-Release (that would be sencond half or
march and september). If there are reasons that force a slip then delay
the release of "n" by one, two or three weeks (or even more), but that
should not effect the schedule of release "n+1".
Just my 2 cent.
CU
thl