On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:34:35AM -0800, Kevin Kluge wrote: > I'd have a preference for 6 month releases. Releases are a lot of > work and I'd prefer to spread that over fewer iterations per year.
Presumably, releases will be less work once we do them a few times and keep adding automation. I'm not really picky about 6-month vs. 4-month, but I just wanted to point out that future releases should be easier than this one. > And I would just call them all major releases (versioning aside). > I'm thinking of something like Fedora. We can independently decide to > do minor releases (presumably no features) in between the majors. > Not sure I understand the distinction you're making here. In another thread, I think we were discussing monthly releases for minor releases. IMHO, that's a good schedule and we should try for a monthly release rather than trying to decide each one independently. (e.g. "well, do we have enough bugfixes for a point release now? How about now?" Etc.) Best, Joe -- Joe Brockmeier Twitter: @jzb http://dissociatedpress.net/
