Hi
"
There was no official statement that the release cycle was permanently
extended either.
Exactly. "
How do you propose to solve that?. Do press releases?
Fedora is not solely focussed on the desktop.
Sure. But a defined long term release cycle has a lot of benefits --
look at Gnome.
Red Hat developers have been involved in the original decision to move
over to a time based release structure. However there are differences
between GNOME and FedoraGNOME is typically not consumed by users
directly. . They can afford to do fixes in a .1 release. If you look at
Fedora, there is a rough time based release but it is not rigid to
accomodate various changes that come up in every development cycle.
No -- but if we sync up to the same schedule maybe gcc will sync to it,
too. Or xorg, kde. Or maybe even the kernel (okay, that's unlikely).
You are talking about a scenario which is highly unlikely on the whole.
It simply doesnt make any sense for many projects to switch into a six
month release cycle.
Sure. But the reason why I replied to your initial mail in this thread
was that there was a lack of a defined statement about the Fedora
release cycle. And that's more a marketing problem afaics.
I dont consider that as a documentation problem as such. One attempt to
fix it is the weekly reports.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/WeeklyReports.
--
Rahul
Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
| 
