On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:59 PM, James Freer jessejazza3.uk@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Zeff joe@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@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.