The slip down memory lane

John Poelstra poelstra at redhat.com
Mon Aug 16 21:43:13 UTC 2010


Till Maas said the following on 08/16/2010 11:41 AM Pacific Time:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 01:06:46PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Peter Jones wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/12/2010 02:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "BN" == Bill Nottingham<notting at redhat.com>  writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> BN>  I can't help but note that the slips have become more frequent as we
>>>>> BN>  started to actually *have* release criteria to test against. We
>>>>> BN>  didn't slip nearly as much when we weren't testing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me this implies that we should begin testing earlier (or, perhaps,
>>>>> never stop testing) and treat any new failure as an event of
>>>>> significance.  It's tough to meet a six month cycle if we spend half of
>>>>> it telling people to expect everything to be broken.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Possibly also stop changing earlier?
>>>
>>> The window for changes is already far too short.
>>>
>>
>> How long is that window anyway?
>
> It should be about 6 months, but from F13 branch to F14 branch it was only 5
> months and one week. Two of these months were after the F13 final release. F15
> is not yet scheduled afaics, so it is unknown how long the window for F15 will
> stay open.
>
> References:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/13/Schedule
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/Schedule
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/15/Schedule
>
This is because if the previous release is late it takes time (in 
theory) from the next release.  Some would argue that no times is taken 
from the subsequent release because rawhide is always available and can 
be committed to.

Fedora 13 was originally scheduled two weeks later than its original 
anchor of May 1st so as not to collide with the Ubuntu release.  Then it 
slipped two more weeks on its own.

John


More information about the devel mailing list