First Draft Development Process Proposal

[pgf at laptop.org]

c. scott ananian wrote:
 > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:22 AM,  <pgf at laptop.org> wrote:
 > >
 > > why is it necessary or optimal that we track every fedora release?
 > > it seems like a requirement that's both ambitious, and somewhat
 > > arbitrary.
 > 
 > I personally think that it's good to keep your upstream (like your
 > enemies) close -- but I agree that it's not strictly necessary for
 > every release.  I do think it's important to have a well-defined
 > relationship with our upstream, though, and since 6-month schedules
 > were being proposed it makes sense to think about how that lines up
 > with Fedora's 6-month schedules.
 > 
 > Perhaps you'd like my second, 4-month, proposal better, which gives us
 > a "day off" from following fedora once in a while.  Or, returning to
 > the 6-month proposal, if the November schedule ends up squeezing us
 > too much because of the holidays, propose that we follow every *other*
 > Fedora release, skipping the Fedora release that happens in November.

it's the latter possibility i was thinking of (sync to every
other fedora release), but obviously only if we (which, as you
say, probably means "dennis") thought the net work, and net
churn, were lower using that plan.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf at laptop.org