John Tapsell wrote: > On 08/01/2008, Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Tuesday 08 January 2008, John Tapsell wrote: >> >> >>> If we go for every 9 months and sync in best possible with the main >>> distros, then it means that there is up to a year between a bug being >>> fixed and the user being able to get that new version. That's too >>> long imho. >>> >> You're entirely wrong in this case. if we go for a 9 month release cycle, we >> align perfectly with the next after the next distro release. If we go with a >> 6 month release cycle for 4.1, we don't align to anything and are again just >> in the middle of nowhere with our bugfix and feature schedule. >> > > I thought it was obvious that I was talking more long term, rather > than focusing just on the next release. > > If we go for a 9 month release cycle, then sure we might align with > the next distro release, but what about the one after that? > > John > > If its a 9 month release, worst case is one distribution release without a new KDE 4.x release right (one including the newest, then one without, for a 6 month release cycle - no distro I can think is faster than that). However, many of the others are without a release cycle, some are 9mos-1yr, etc. With a 6 month release cycle, I would think more distributions would skip releases than include them. With a 9 month release cycle, it would likely give a bit more time to spread out betas/rc's, and be generally inbetween the majority of release schedules for distros (for those that have them).
Just a thought -Joe _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
