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