> > * Releases happen every 3 months, with the date of 3.0 (23rd
> > September) being the reference point, so releases would be:
> >
> > Any opinions/objections?
>
> Only one: I think it should be 4 months between releases, to
> leave a longer window for features to go in and mature. I
> think
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Frank Gevaerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there's a reasonable chance that attempted 3-month cycles will
> turn out to take 4 months anyway (and 4-month atempts would take 5
> months), so I think staying with 3 months is a good idea
>
Plus, if we find th
Frank Gevaerts wrote:
I think there's a reasonable chance that attempted 3-month cycles will
turn out to take 4 months anyway (and 4-month atempts would take 5
months), so I think staying with 3 months is a good idea
Frank
Well, realistically, we'd be setting dates to start the freezes as w
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 11:10:46PM +0100, Jonas Häggqvist wrote:
> Paul Louden wrote:
> > Is there something that "4 months is enough to get new features in, but
> > 3 months isn't" is based on
>
> No, it's mostly just a feeling that with a release coming up every 3
> months, that's going to take
Paul Louden wrote:
> Jonas Häggqvist wrote:
>> Only one: I think it should be 4 months between releases
> Is there something that "4 months is enough to get new features in, but
> 3 months isn't" is based on
No, it's mostly just a feeling that with a release coming up every 3
months, that's going
Jonas Häggqvist wrote:
Only one: I think it should be 4 months between releases, to leave a
longer window for features to go in and mature. I think the amount of
people who'd run a 3-month old stable build, but not a 4-month old one, is
vanishingly small, so adding that extra month probably won't
Dave Chapman wrote:
> * Releases happen every 3 months, with the date of 3.0 (23rd September)
> being the reference point, so releases would be:
>
> Any opinions/objections?
Only one: I think it should be 4 months between releases, to leave a
longer window for features to go in and mature. I thin
I like the idea of time based releases too, waiting around for "significant"
features will make the time frame very unpredictable. If we have to wait a
long time, more issues are likely to have popped up, documentation more out
of sync etc. so each release would mean a lot more work IMHO.
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
I just wonder if it will start being pointless like the dailies?
For you and me and lots of others they will be pointless. For users they will
be a means to get the latest stable version that is no more than three months
behind the cutting edge.
E
2008/11/5 Daniel Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
>
>> I'm not against the idea, but I wonder what the point of releasing so
>> often is unless there was something big?
>
> I totally submit to the idea of doing regular time-based releases no matter
> if any
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
I'm not against the idea, but I wonder what the point of releasing so often
is unless there was something big?
I totally submit to the idea of doing regular time-based releases no matter if
anything "big" is done or not. For the sake of offering "sta
> 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 desig
Jonathan Gordon wrote:
I'm not against the idea, but I wonder what the point of releasing so
often is unless there was something big?
The point is to keep the most recent stable release recent. We want
users to (in general) use the releases, and if we stick to a relatively
short (and fixed)
Will Robertson wrote:
For major releases (ie. 3.0, 4.0, etc) we could have more specific
requirements, for example a UI rework or some other quite visible change.
Yes, major version numbers will more or less be reserved for something
"of significance." We can figure out what such things are w
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Dave Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Releases happen every 3 months, with the date of 3.0 (23rd September)
> being the reference point, so releases would be:
I quite like this idea. With Rockbox it is quite difficult to quantize what
makes a release, so tim
2008/11/5 Dave Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> All,
>
> There's just been a brief discussion in IRC suggesting that we create a
> strict timetable for releases as follows:
>
> * Releases happen every 3 months, with the date of 3.0 (23rd September)
> being the reference point, so releases would be:
>
All,
There's just been a brief discussion in IRC suggesting that we create a
strict timetable for releases as follows:
* Releases happen every 3 months, with the date of 3.0 (23rd September)
being the reference point, so releases would be:
23 March
23 June
23 September
23 December
* Featur
17 matches
Mail list logo
