On Sunday 07 September 2003 17:25, Thierry Vignaud wrote: > 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.
I think that most people would not want to update every 4 months. This is like forcing the upgrade, which is something that everyone blame microsoft for. Even if upgrade are simple and doesn't pose any problem. And how do you want to be entreprise ready if it change so often ? On a side note, you need some rest from time to time. For me, 6 month is fine. -- Mickaël Scherer
