On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 03:59 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 02:25:26AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>
> > So my answer would be "if FC5 deadlines don't give you enough time to
> > complete a given piece of work, target FC6 instead".
>
> Not to be rude but why the hard headed attachment to 'WE MUST RELEASE
> EVERY 6 MONTHS'. The gnome people have recently said that new and
> interesting development has been stymied somewhat by that schedule and
This does not reflect at all un understanding of the GNOME community
There is very strong backing for time based releases. There may be
people with a different viewpoint, but it's certainly not
"The gnome people".
you're right. I misspoke. I was referring to what I had read in a series
of blog entries on the subject.
The point is that most people/companies prefer a graceful gradual
shift than
big point releases. This does not prevent big change, but it forces to
still release and take into account the evolution. To me the counter example of
Debian stable release shows clearly why a time based release schedule
is very important for the community in general.
You think your change will take too long to implement ? Then plan this over
the time frame of multiple releases, really !
I'm not arguing against a time based release. I'm arguing against the
current time allotted for the release. So I think time based released
are just fine - but not when it only allows about 2-3 months of actual
time allotted to doing any development
Can you see the distinction b/t the two?
-sv