Uwe Stöhr wrote: > blame you for this because we all are to blame here. We should start to > write down how we want to release that it becomes more transparent and that > we don't forget about that for the next release.
Uwe, I don't think this is not matter of forgetting/transparency. I agree with you that all multiple beta/rc are better than what we had now, but it really boils down to the fact that we did not have man power for doing that; we can feel lucky that 2.1 is out at all ;) What I have been thinking about is changing the model how we select release managers for next releases. It is consistent that devs active in the begining of the release cycle are different from devs active in the end. 99% of work, by which I mean doing tarballs, testing, keeping list up-to-date with mails, pushing other devs to finish their work etc is at the end of cycle. I remember that in all last three major releases we had the same problem that it was actually the community, who had to scream and push things forward. So my proposal for the next release would be that we let things to evolve in it's usual chaotic way and in the moment there is a feeling in the community that release is due, we try to push someone active at that time to take the responsibility (perhaps the one who screams most ;) What do others think about that? Pavel
