Warly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Question really is who set the 6 month limit? If the mad rush to > > > keep up with the cycle causes the problems that are occurring at > > > the moment then it must be questioned. If the problem isn't > > > faced up to, there may not be a requirement for a six month > > > cycle in the future, there may not be a future. > > > > You have a question about that? I think the answer is obvious. > > Mandrakesoft. There was some discussion about backing off on the > > rate of releases a while back. > > Mandrakesoft may be the obvious reason, but would it be a better > release cycle? > > Presently I would even favor a 4 months release cycle. And there are > far enough changes in the linux world in 4 months to justify a new > release. > > I am convinced of several things : > > - a non fix release date is bad, because a release is never finished and we > need to move on. > > - a too long release cycle is bad, because new computers does not work correctly > without new XFree, new kernel and so on. > > - a too long release is bad because it means less pressure, ond good things only > happen under pressure.
i agree, not so many things happens on the first monthes after the release. most things are done in the last monthes before the release.
