On Thu, Apr 18, 2013, at 08:41 PM, David Nalley wrote: > Having seen the point releases twice now, which still need upgrade > testing, release notes, etc I don't get the feeling that the > 'overhread' referred to above is the problem. Joe may disagree with > me.
I do, to a degree. - Point releases require *far* less revision for release notes, etc., and should require only fixes to documentation - not wholesale creation of new docs for new features, etc. - Time spent on release notes, etc. is time *not* spent doing more than the bare minimum for documentation. - The time and effort for *promoting* a major release is a fixed cost, and may have diminishing returns. (e.g. two releases a year are spaced out far enough to be newsworthy, three *may* invite press fatigue.) I tend to lean more towards a six-month schedule, but I understand the reasons for wanting to release more frequently. David does make a good point as well - 4.0.0 was a first effort and isn't really usable as a baseline for what a release cycle should look like. 4.1.0 involved huge amounts of churn in the toolchain, etc. and we also had a slight disruption at the tail-end of the cycle with graduation. My suggestion for now would be that we get 4.1.0 out the door and do a post-mortem immediately after the release to look how we might keep to an aggressive release cycle. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
