Max Spevack wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Mike McCarty wrote:
Tim wrote:
One of the dislikes I have with Fedora *is* the release schedule.
There'll be a release around a certain date, ready or not, sensible or
not. A new release comes up around the time the last one has many of
That's just what Fedora is. The releases are time based, not
readiness or QA based.
You do realize that we slipped the release of FC5 because it wasn't
ready at the initial date, right? :-)
Yes.
We *try* to do a 6 month release cycle, but we don't demand it "just
I don't recall using the word "demand", nor did I use the phrase
"just because". I used the phrase "time based".
because". It's a goal, and it gives us something to shoot for, and
keeps in mind the Fedora motto of rapid progress.
Perhaps English is not one of your native languages. For something
to be "based" in English does not mean "solely based", as you seem
to think I was implying.
[snip]
Fedora is not meant to be the OS with long release cycles and little
churn. The key is balancing the rapid progress with quality and
It certainly does not provide us with the absence of churn. One might
even say thrashing.
stability. Sometimes we do that better than other times, but we are
consistently getting better at this, IMHO.
In my not so humble opinion everyone has different priorities.
"Rapid change" and "rapid progress" mean very different things.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
