On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:33 PM, "Marcus Sorensen" <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing I'd like to point out, and perhaps its merely subjective, but it
> seemed like from initial 4.1 feature freeze to a week or two before the rc
> was supposed to be cut there wasn't much action on bug fixing. It wasn't
> until the deadlines started becoming imminent that people came back to work
> on 4.1. Just something to keep in mind when discussing extending deadlines.
Certainly the urgency does set in closer to deadlines.
> On Apr 11, 2013 11:12 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Looking at that we fixed 217 bugs in roughly 2 months during 4.1 cycle,
>> fixing the backlog of bug will probably take us 2 months. Should we
>> extend the 4.2 test cycle by 2 months [Original Schedule: 6/1 - 7/22,
>> Extended Schedule: 6/1-9/22] to reduce the technical debt significantly? I
>> would like to hear how community wants to address technical debt. Based on
>> the input and consensus I will publish the agreed schedule next week.
>>
>> So it's a bit confusing, you just proposed a schedule for keeping us
>> on the 4-month cycle, and then ask this question about extending it by
>> two months.
>> IMO changing the release cycle needs to be it's own thread though.
>>
>> --David
>>
