On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:09:05AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
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?
Any duration will get people arguing whether it's too long or too short.
To me 6 months is a 80/20 equilibrium point, plus it makes very easy to
memorize and predict releases (one for the Summer, one for the Winter).
Just skip one release, branch and you get 9 months to work without being
disturbed too much. It seems to me that a fair amount of users follow that
pattern too and don't update every 6 months, but every year or so (that would
be an interesting poll to set up on the fedora web site I think).
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team
http://redhat.com/
veillard(a)redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit
http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine
http://rpmfind.net/