On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:37:25 -0500 (CDT), Dale Huckeby wrote:
+1
The consensus so far seems to be:
6 months is too short
12 months is too long
9 months is juuuuust about right
and that applies not only to developers having a chance to catch
their
breath between versions, but
users too. A 6-month turnaround feels like I'm constantly updating,
but a
12-month wait between
versions is like forever. And as wobo suggests, 9 months need be only
an
average, with a target date
for the next release, taking into account upstream developments,
decided
on after each one. Also,
the target date should be approximate at first and firmed up only as
we
get closer to release.
spock
+1
9 months seems to create a nice stable base - with enough time to add
new
developments and breathe between releases (along with kernel updates
for
new kit).
My suggestion is that for those who want faster access to new versions
of
apps will be able to create a larger focus on backports for large and
common apps (from cauldron) without taking the focus away from the 9mth
release cycle.
This slightly extra use of backports may also help with the LTS
proposals.
--
Sam Bailey
(cyprix)
