On 11/13/13 4:37 PM, Tyro[17] wrote:
I'm of the opinion, however, that
the cycle should be six months long. This particular schedule is not of my own
crafting but I
believe it to be sound and worthy of emulation:
I think 6 months between releases is entirely too long. I'd really like us to be back closer to the
once every month or two rather than only twice a year. The pace of change is high and increasing
(which is a good thing). Release early and often yields a smoother rate of introducing those
changes to the non-bleeding-edge part of the community. The larger the set of changes landing in a
release the more likely it is to be a painful, breaking, experience.
Schedule
--------
2.064 --- 2.064.1 --- 2.064.2 -- ...
\
+ -- 2.065beta1 --- 2.065beta2 --- ... --- 2.065rc1 --- 2.065 --- 2.065.1
--- ...
\
+ -- 2.066beta1
--- ...
As drawn, this looks a lot like a branch structure rather than release timing. I dearly hope this
isn't intended to represent branching.
My few cents,
Brad
