On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:46:33PM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote: > Proposal 1: > 6 months release cycle -> 12 months life cycle
> Proposal 2: > 9 months release cycle -> 18 months life cycle > Proposal 3: > 12 months release cycle -> 24 months life cycle Regarding release cycles from a GNOME perspective (so 6 months): + 6 months is great for stability; with the various freezes and so on, there is not a lot of development going on, so code doesn't become too unstable + very predictable for everyone (releases + freezes are always in the same period) + more immediate feedback from users - developers might get too focussed on the 6 months, and development might slow down after a few years (happened with GNOME 2.x until 3.0 was suggested) to avoid it you need something like a 'feature map' (plan beforehand what to do next and when you think the development would be done; don't focus too much on the next version) - big changes are difficult to do in 6 months; though you can branch and so on, it isn't always possible (interaction between modules and so on) e.g. new GDM or the gnome-vfs -> gvfs switch - stable release is not supported/looked after for too long Distribution is of course different from just software, so feel free to ignore. There was discussion in the past to make a release every 6 months, but work on it for 9 (there would be a 3 month overlap where developers had to work on both branches). E.g. by having a restricted 'Mageia 2' while still having an 'anything goes' Cauldron. -- Regards, Olav