On 12/20/2016 11:14 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Ter, 2016-12-20 at 11:20 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> 2. I really want releases to come at a known time every year, +/- two
> weeks. Keeping to this with six month targets means that if
> we slip, the next release may only have five or four months to
This is a problem IMHO. We shouldn't shorter the next release when we
But I remember when we got a big slip (because Fedora have one of the
first releases that support secure boot), I saw a big concern with
marketing , that was a bad image (the big slip) etc etc.
So I think this rule was created by marketing/image of the Fedora to
outside. So at least we should assume that we may do less 2 release per
year and break the cycle of releases on May/Jun and Nov/Dec.
One more note , I didn't agree that slip was bad , Fedora software is
based in many upstream software if other parts slip we may/should also
slip until get things stable. So maybe here is more a question of
marketing to have more freedom in choice of the cycles. Maybe we can do
a schedule with more 3 or 4 week and instead slip we could anticipate
the release, I don't know just another idea.
If Fedora doesn't ship on predictable boundaries its alignment with
other projects that do is compromised. This includes projects like
glibc and gcc, which are a significant underpinnings of what makes a
Fedora release version.
Brendan Conoboy / RHEL Development Coordinator / Red Hat, Inc.