On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:59 PM, James Freer <jessejazza3.uk(a)gmail.com>wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us> wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 06:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> because first new anaconda was approved and integration
>> all over the distribution started and after that damage
>> was done people realized "hm new anaconda is not ready"
>
>
> So what you're saying is, it was approved before it was ready. Judging
from
> what else you wrote, the devs didn't realize it when they approved it.
This
> suggests to me that approval came too early in the process, before proper
> testing was done and that important parts of the program hadn't been
> completed. If so, is there anything that can be done to prevent this
from
> happening yet again?
I have the greatest respect for the developer's that put in
considerable effort for each release. The problem with 6 month release
cycle is too little time. I've used linux now for almost 6 years with
Ubuntu and Fedora. Some distros use a two year release which is too
long. One or two use an annual release which i think is about right...
development and testing can fully take place. Why not consider an
annual release which would give appropriate time for all to take
place?
james
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away:
http://ask.fedoraproject.org
I think this is a great idea, and it would be interesting to know if there
actually is an updated rationale for a bi-annual release cycle as it is now.
--
Best,
Christopher Svanefalk
mob: +46762628251
skype: csvanefalk
Resume (LinkedIn):
http://www.linkedin.com/in/csvanefalk