What next?

[seth vidal]

>   Any duration will get people arguing whether it's too long or too short.
> To me 6 months is a 80/20 equilibrium point, plus it makes very easy to
> memorize and predict releases (one for the Summer, one for the Winter).


Any change requires discussion. That's how change happens. I'm glad you
feel good about a schedule that's twice a year, but I don't think that's
enough time for what we're trying to get done.

>   Just skip one release, branch and you get 9 months to work without being
> disturbed too much. It seems to me that a fair amount of users follow that
> pattern too and don't update every 6 months, but every year or so (that would
> be an interesting poll to set up on the fedora web site I think).

it doesn't work that way  b/c some of the stuff I want to do would stall
out plans for anaconda and pup, as well, it plays into a lot of doodads
we want to get more time moving on.

these projects are not islands unto themselves, they involve other plans
too. Release coordination should be a discussion otherwise it's not
really an integrated release.

-sv