So clearly we need to choose a number relatively prime to 12 if this is desirable. With 9 months there's only 4 possible months for release. If you did, say, 7 months, then you'd never repeat a month until you'd hit 'em all :-)
-Rob On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 10:43 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote: > Elijah Newren wrote: > > I used to be firmly in favor of the 6-month cycle, but I found > > Andrew's argument quite convincing and it has turned me into more of a > > fence sitter for now. It isn't yet clear to me that a change would be > > a definite improvement, let alone enough of a benefit to merit the > > change in the process, but that may well change. > > I think this is why an alternating 6 and 12 month cycle would be nice. A > 9 month cycle would be even more interesting, because the dates would > not always fall at the same times. > > --Pat > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list