> I'm not against the idea, but I wonder what the point of releasing so > often is unless there was something big? >
I agree. Considering the last gap between releases was three years, a release schedule of every 3 months seems a bit like setting ourselves up for a fall. A targetted release designed to give a new feature-set seems like a more manageable idea. > On your time line you have freeze, branch, release. What about tracker > cleanup, manual fixes, mad rush to get ready patches in? Those absolutely need to be done. A focus on periodic *very* stable releases with full documentation would IMHO be preferable to releases done 'just because we said we would'. ...or do similar to the ubuntu > "schedule" where one release is a bugfix/stable one and the next is > more about features (bug fixes still go in of course....) I'm not so sure about that. Given the rapid rate of commits in the project, I think an 'unstable' release doesn't gain anything. The current 'bleeding edge' system works well for those who want to try every new feature and periodic stable releases are there for everyone else. bascule
