On Mon, Apr 22, 2013, at 04:19 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > - Joe agrees partly in release overhead being significant for major > release
This is only a partial summary of what I've said before. Yes, I think there's overhead in a release that's really non-flexible. However, we've really not given a four-month release a proper shot yet. As already mentioned - our first release cycle was all about getting the infra up in place. The second one was punctuated by graduation and other things that kept it from being as "smooth" as it could have been. The 4.2 cycle would be the first one we really have a shot at a "normal" release cycle. Am I 100% convinced in a four-month cycle? Not yet, but I am convinced it's a goal we should be aiming for, and I don't think we get there by going to a six-month cycle "until we're ready." We get there by aiming for four-month cycles and improving until we reach the ability to do a four-month cycle. +1 to a four month cycle. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
