Hi, Thank-you Greg, appreciate your consideration and flexibility.
Steve / Futurile On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 11:37:15AM -0400, Greg Hogan wrote: > 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
