Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 14:02 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
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".
Time is just one of the factors in the release schedule.
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.
Your certainly claimed that it was not readiness or QA based which is
incorrect since we have indeed delayed the schedule to do more QA on
several occasions before. I do remember me correctly this specific
misconception earlier from you too.
I don't want to get into the niceties of the language used, however,
the release of Fedora is definitely not QA based, but time based,
your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
Just see above "We *try* to do a 6 month release cycle...."
IOW, the basis for release is time lapse. If the quality is so low
that it just isn't reasonable, then it gets held up.
I also recall you making similar false claims earlier as well.
It isn't necessary to remind me.
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!
