What next?

[Josh Boyer]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 12:30 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 04:27 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > 
> > > How would you know? Red hat has never had a release cycle of anything
> > > other than 6 months. You seem to be making an assertion you can't
> > > support. I'm suggesting we try something to see if it helps.
> > 
> >   Sure we do internally... RHEL so far has had an 18 months cycle
> 
> Nice of y'all to allow yourself longer release cycles while denying it
> to fedora community developers.

I agree with Seth here.  A longer release cycle could prove to be very
beneficial.  18 months would be too long for Fedora, but 9 might work
out very nicely.  What's the harm in trying it for a release and seeing
how it goes?

> 
> > and it does work by branching at some point and doing the work we want
> > to do on the community base until it is ready to release. Like you we
> > need more time to integrate changes and stabilize than what the 6month
> > cycle allows, we also have the need to integrate most of it back into
> > the main cycle, and not disrupt it. It requires planning, branching,
> > merging, but it's doable and I think we can support that model from a
> > technical standpoint since we are over the fourth iteration on that model.
> 
> I think we don't have nearly enough volunteers or infrastructure to say
> that the fourth iteration of that model is viable. I've watched the
> amount of stuff that needs to be done at the fedora extras steering
> committee meetings and it's non-trivial and needs to be done ASAP.

As an aside, perhaps the FESCO meeting agendas/minutes should be
publicly available somewhere.  Then people who want to volunteer for
stuff like that would have a place to look.  At the very least, it
provides the community with an idea of what's happening and where things
are headed.

josh