On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddy <ele...@umich.edu> wrote: >> Feel free to respond over email or just edit the >> document: http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PlipProcess > > Great work! > >> In general, I'd like to give the fixed release schedule a 6 month test >> drive. If it sucks we can go back to status quo or move forward with the >> latest and greatest. > > I cannot remember any Plone releases that only took 6 months - even > when we tried hard. I'd usually expect a 50% overrun from any stated > timeline, so while aiming for 6 months we can manage to do a release > after 9 months. We'd have to aim for a 3-4 months cycle to actually be > able to do two releases in a year. > > And I wouldn't really want to do more than two releases per year, or > we risk getting too fragmented, diverging code bases and very short > support lifecycles for each release (only the last 4.x release gets > bugfixes at any given time according to our current policy). > > I think we could aim for a spring and an autumn release, expecting > most people to be busy in summer vacations and around x-mas/new year. > > Hanno
You're probably right. That's my over-eager under-estimation issue. ;) What I'm after is trying to reduce the "penalty" for missing the merge deadline. By that, I mean that once that deadline is missed, development tends to completely halt for months at a time before another last minute push at the next deadline. Maybe that's something we can fix with better back and forth from the FWT. Maybe it's just a fact of life. ;) Eric _______________________________________________ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
