Maybe highlight release-slipping features? (was: Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule)

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:38:27AM -0400, Scott Schmit wrote:
> > Given the current state of F18 I agree let's lengthen this release
> > cycle up to 9 months and arguably we should lengthen the whole
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > development cycle to 9 months from now on.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'm not sure that helps -- then people just get more ambitious with
> their features and then what? Slow the release cycle down more?
> Remember, the whole point of regular, strict-timed releases is to keep
> things moving.

+1 to this. With a 6 month cycle, if something isn't ready, slipping isn't
usually earth-shattering.

What I think we need is:

- more cross-cycle planning.
- a more functional rawhide which people can actually develop against.


> Maybe we need to highlight those features that don't have a realistic
> contingency plan (the work to revert and re-test is greater than the
> work to complete) and call them out as "Critical Features" that we are
> committing to slipping a release for if they don't work well, rather
> than to revert them.

+1 to this too.


-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>