On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Richard Guenther wrote: > > As commented to my last status report develop.html does not reflect > > reality anymore. The following tries to adjust it carefully in > > this respect. > > I believe you got the math wrong in one case, when you went from > four months that a branch will need to be maintained in the old > model up to six months. Is it possible you ment to substract the > two months Stage 2 used to take instead of add it?
Indeed, I mixed in the length of stage1. Four month would be still about correct (2 month stage3 plus 2 month before we branch, in the old model it was 2 month stage2 plus 2 month stage3). > Since it seems hard to predicat the time between the end of Stage 3 > and branching, I suggest to just say "a few months". > > The patch below does that in its last hunk and makes one or the > other editorial change. > > Thoughts? Ok with me. Thanks, Richard.
