> On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:22:46, Jose' Matos
<jamatos(a)fc.up.pt> said:
Not only that but it makes us dependent on an external
entity. What if gnome developer decide (rightly IMO) that they need
more time to release 3.0, do we change the schedule then?
Should we re-sync after?
That is crazy. :-)
I'm not pushing for either schedule, but some points (mostly from
FUDCon) on why using a six-month schedule is not "crazy", and in
fact seems to be becoming de facto:
* GNOME does it, as mentioned.
* Xorg does it.
* OpenOffice does it.
* GCC is on a yearly cycle, so we'd pick up a new release roughly
every second time.
* The farther our releases are out of sync with these, the more
work we have to do.
* The lesson learnt from FC5 was that it hurts more than it
helps us to have more than six months for a release.
As for getting GNOME packages the day before a release, no-one's
proposing that. GNOME 2.16's scheduled for release on September 6th,
our current schedule is to release on September 20th. Moreover,
GNOME's feature freezes line up with ours; it's not like there'll be
dramatically new code appearing while we're getting ready to push,
just fixes to the packages we'll have already been testing in Rawhide
for months. I think GNOME has a well-deserved reputation for not
screwing up freezes and release dates.
Ubuntu also uses six month GNOME-tied releases (though their last one
overran, so they'll make Edgy tighter to catch back up).
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb(a)mrao.cam.ac.uk> <
http://blog.printf.net/>