On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:46:43PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I think what Paul is suggesting (he will for sure correct me > if I'm wrong) is that it's better to at least have some semblance > of a schedule than not, and by baselining every X months for a release, > it provides us, as volunteers, to better allocate time. It does > not mean, imo, that we rush out packages that aren't ready or > release something just because "we have a schedule to keep"... > we all have day jobs that force that on us, and we don't want > that kind of pressure here as well. > TBH, I'm not too keen on the idea of releasing just because we're suddenly hitting a specific date - if there's no changes worth releasing... Yeah, I'd like to see it happen more often than every 6-8 months, but every 2-3 months is just going to create unnecessary work fort the admins out there. Going down this route, I think the bare minimum way of playing nice would be to very clearly mark releases as either security, feature or just that time of the month releases.
> However, looking over things, I think that we have enough active > activity such that a ~3month "cycle" might be workable... How many branches are we talking about? the whole 2.x bunch or? just my $.02 Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk
