<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Ralf Corsepius <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rc040203@freenet.de" target="_blank">rc040203@freenet.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 10/31/2012 11:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:59:54AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I think we need to give developers more time for feature integration<br>
after the feature freeze.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
+1<br>
<br>
No matter whether we increase the length of development or not, the time<br>
between feature freeze and the spinning of a release is too quick.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div>
No matter which length of timeslots you choose, these timeslots will always be too short.<br>
<br>
IMO, Fedora devs and FESCO needs to take fallback strategies and backing-out strategies into account right from the beginning and be prepared for devs not meeting deadlines.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br></font></span></blockquote><div><br>And be prepared to take the hard decision to enforce them.<br><br>Peter <br></div></div><br></div>