2011/6/13 Thomas Backlund <t...@mageia.org> > Wolfgang Bornath skrev 13.6.2011 15:20: > >> About the cycles: >> >> >> The 9-months seem to be a compromise - but I start to ask why we need >> such a fixed statement (which it would be, once published). We need a >> schedule for each cycle, that's true. Without a schedule we would >> never finish anything. But how about taking 9 months only as a "nice >> to meet" target, leaving us the option to set a roadmap after setting >> the specs of the next release - we could then go for a 8 or 10 months >> roadmap, depending on the specs. >> >> > This is somewhat like what I had in my mind to write too, but you beat me > to it :) > > It could allow us to adapt a little for upstream releases. > But should we then decide that the limit is +/- 1 month ? > > Obviously there will still be people complaining that "you waited 10 > months... if you had extended with ~2 more weeks... "this" or "that" > package would have been available too... and so on.... > > > And something not to forget (this is more related to the specs): > > If an estimated upstream release of kde/gnome/... seem to fit our > schedule it _must_ be in Cauldron before version freeze so we > actually get some test/qa on it and not try to force it in by > "hey it's released ~x days before final mageia release so it > must be added" attitude that tends to pop up at every freeze. > > -- > Thomas > > > > Let the 9 months as maximum, as a general target.
Make the specs and then the roadmap with a fixed release date and a fixed enough time for freeze and testing. If an upstream release brings conflits, that's live. Main focus should be a stable release for simple users not a pot of the latest apps Magnus