Re: Maybe highlight release-slipping features? (was: Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule)
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(a)fedoraproject.org>