GNOME 3.9.91 megaupdate

Reindl Harald h.reindl at
Mon Sep 2 20:49:51 UTC 2013

Am 02.09.2013 22:27, schrieb Kalev Lember:
> On 09/02/2013 07:37 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> Could we have avoided this conflict by scheduling better in advance?
> We might have been able to do slightly better, because GNOME schedules
> are published in advance and set pretty much in stone. In the end, it's
> hard to plan for this though because we tend to slip often with Fedora
> (there has already been a two-week adjustment to F20 schedule:
> What really matters is to have the final releases of Fedora and GNOME
> roughly in sync (by the way, thanks for everyone involved for making the
> shorter F20 schedule work!). It's not much of a problem if there are
> small scheduling issues with Alpha / Beta releases, as long as the final
> Fedora release doesn't come too late after a GNOME release

and *what* exactly makes GNOME special that Fedora releases
have to follow it?

frankly there are *a lot* of users who don't give a damn about GNOME at all
and release Fedora with pressure because GNOME is ready and accept breakage
on other components (other desktops, server-software, dore-system) because
GNOME is now happy to release *is not* the way to go - period

in reality it would be a good idea to skip a whole fedora release
and use the release cycle for bug-triage

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list