On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:15 -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:22:46, Jose' Matos
<jamatos(a)fc.up.pt> said:
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.
the lesson learnt only by those people INSIDE red hat.
it was not a universally acknowledged lesson - it just made life
difficult for folks inside the fenceline.
I'll live with a 6 month schedule but let's not revise history
overly-much, okay?
-sv