> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 02:36:47PM -0500, Ed Szynaka wrote: > > The problem that I see is that there is too much time between stable > > releases. I think that shorter and much more regular time periods > > between freezes is necessary. By fixing the number and date of freezes, > > with say three or four a year, and letting everyone know long in advance > > of the freeze it would allow developers to schedule when all bugs must > > be removed by. Also the fact that the time period would be much shorter > > would make changes between stable versions less drastic and therefore > > easier to handle. > > How does this account for drastic changes to something like libc that > might take weeks or months to shake out?
Well say that there are 3 releases a year. That gives say 3 months for devel. With a freeze scheduled to start at the beginning of the 4th month and a stable release at the end of a month of freeze. I think that even the most drastic changes can be worked out in the course of 4 months. Now if something _can't_ be completed in that time frame just postpone it until the next freeze. Since the next stable would only be 4 months off the penalty for not making it into the stable isn't that severe. With only the 3 months of changes I don't think that a freeze will take as long as it has with a 6 or even 12 month devel cycle. Ed
