On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 02:47:15 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
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.
I agree. There's really no reason not to release frequently as long as the release process isn't overly burdensome on the Release Czar (Walter's term, not mine :P). Git's cheap and powerful branching means it's easy to work on changes of nearly any size and still have a rapid release cycle.
6 months between releases means a regression that was introduced in the latest version requires you to wait another 6 months for the fix which means you are running a version that is a year out of date.
