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: > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1095#comment:12) > > 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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
