Rufus wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Rufus wrote:
4) adopt a schedule for release and release fewer changes per cycle -
this could be done on a shorter cycle, allowing for more releases.
5) adopt a longer release cycle for major changes to allow user polling
and beta test of (all) pending implementations prior to formal release -
this would fit a longer cycle with fewer releases.
Longer or shorter? Is three years for really major changes such as
what we did with 1.x -> 2.0 with 1.5 years of releasing Alphas and
Betas too little in the moving-fast Internet world?
A two year cycle is about standard for what I do, and what I manage is
WAY more complex than something like SM...the short cycle model works
just fine for security and "under the hood" fixes, the long cycle model
works better for major interface changes.
Just by way of examples (poor though they may be!!):-
Windows 95 in 1994/5
Windows 98 in 1997/8
Windows ME/2000 in 2000
Windows XP in 2002/3
Windows Vista in 2007
Windows 7 in 2009
(These I would put in the same realm as SM 1 -> SM 2
On the other hand, Mandriva Linux developers produce Spring and Autumn
releases each year. These I would put in the SM 2.0 -> SM 2.1 realm.
My 2c.
Daniel
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
