On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 9:33 AM Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> writes: > > > My opinions on the project release cadence are of no greater > > consequence than the update frequency or inclusion of any individual > > package by a contributor or team. Most of this GCD can simply be > > merged into the project documentation, which can then be updated with > > a new commit rather than requiring a new GCD. By codifying an annual > > release process we actually restrict the number of releases! And what > > if the June deadline is missed? If these are mere guidelines then what > > are we voting on? > > We’re deliberating on a release process. > > And I think that’s no small feat. Previously, releases were handled by > long-time contributors; some of the process is documented but most of it > is insider knowledge. Overall it was arguably not very legible, > particularly the “when” and the “what”. > > I believe this GCD clarifies all this, meaning that contributors more > clearly know what to expect and how to contribute. > > Thanks, > Ludo’.
Hi Ludo', I would have argued for keeping GCDs focused on significant project changes as outlined in GCD 001, but I can appreciate the desire to also use the visibility of the GCD process to discuss other important processes and documentation updates. Since non-significant changes do not require a new GCD, we can adjust and improve upon the ideas from GCD 005 without necessarily going through this process again. Greg
