On 11/01/2012 08:37 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/31/2012 11:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:59:54AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
I think we need to give developers more time for feature integration
after the feature freeze.
+1
No matter whether we increase the length of development or not, the time
between feature freeze and the spinning of a release is too quick.
No matter which length of timeslots you choose, these timeslots will
always be too short.
IMO, Fedora devs and FESCO needs to take fallback strategies and
backing-out strategies into account right from the beginning and be
prepared for devs not meeting deadlines.
Nod. Seems to me one of the bigger issues is the tendency for features
to crash-land right on the eve of the freeze + branch - so late there
might not be time to revert (or at least postpone) them in case piles of
unforeseen issues are found. Witness UsrMove which landed *just before*
the branch, when something of that scale should've landed immediately
*after* a branch to give time to discover and fix most of the problems
it brought in rawhide.
There are features and features... some of them are new versions of
leafnode packages or a just bunch of new packages which nothing else
depends on, and some of them affect *everything* in the distro. Perhaps
the invasive changes should have a considerably earlier deadline, and if
the deadline is not met then the feature would be "automatically"
postponed to next release.
- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
