Hi Pinoaffe, On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 11:26:21AM +0200, pinoaffe wrote: > Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: (...) > > On the other hand, I think that putting into place a process for releases > > is a significant change; and since there are several ways of getting to > > a release, it is good to have a community discussion and to collectively > > decide. > > I think defining a release process might be a significant change, but > establishing a release schedule when there is none at the moment does > not seem like a significant change, and in any case I don't think that > regular releases can be brought about by a GCD (...)
You said "I don't think that regular release can be brought about by a GCD". I don't know precisely why you think this, but I will guess that your perspective is that having a GCD doesn't magically make 4 volunteers turn up who are willing to do the work. Of course, this is true - totally appreciate that. But, having a GCD does: 1. Provide a clear statement of what we want: "regular annual releases" 2. Provide some methods for how to make achieving releases easier: automation, package sets, architectures 3. Creates a useful organisation documentation around how to do releases: something the first release team can build on So from that perspective, I think it _may_ help, and it doesn't hinder! Steve / Futurile
