> I agreed with you at the time that the yearly cycle was too long to be > adding features before cutting a release, and still do now. Instead of > elastic banding all the way back to a process which wasn't working before, > why not try somewhere in the middle? A release every 6 months (with > monthly bug fixes for a year) gives: > > 1. long enough time to stabilize (1 year vs 1 month) > 2. not so long things sit around untested forever > 3. only 2 releases (current and previous) to do bug fix support at any > given time.
The third reason is particularly appealing. +1 on six months. +1 on killing tick/tock at 3.10 (with a potential bugfix follow up per the other thread).
