On May 17, 2012, at 2:29 PM, David Nalley wrote: > [lots of snippage below] > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Robert Schweikert <rjsch...@suse.com> wrote: >> My suggestion would be to go with a 6 month time based release cycle and >> also decide on a version numbering scheme. >> >> X.Y.Z >> >> - X : increases when there is a "major" change in architecture or some major >> new feature >> - Y : increases with every release every 6 month (reset when X increases) >> - Z : increases when there are "must fix bugs" or annoying bugs that get >> fixed in a release branch (reset when Y increases) > > Wholeheartedly agree with the above versioning logic.
So we're in agreement to provide maintenance on x.y releases for a period of time? Say the last two minor (Y) releases? > What do we think is a reasonable time to get a release out? 3 months? > 4 months? 6 months? Lets find where we need to place the stake and do > so soon. 6 months between releases sounds too slow to me as a user - I'd prefer to see 3 or 4 months between releases. As a developer, I'd think it's easier to keep track of things on a shorter release cycle and things wouldn't slip as much... John
