On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 03:59:37PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > But, if you want to stick with the "odd is devel, even is stable" > scheme, then I think roughly this is what should happen, essentially > right now: > > - Something like head should be released as 1.6 > - The less "unobtainable" outstanding issues identified for 1.6 > should be reassigned to 1.7 > - The more unobtainable outstanding issues in 1.6 should be > relegated to 2.0 > - Releases (of the stable variety) should generally be kept smaller, > have specific goals assigned to them, and be attempted at least > annually > - There should be a clear statement, in some form or other, what is > intended to be done in the next minor release, the next major > release, and some broad statements about what the goal is for > beyond that. Except for the last (or perhaps even the last), this > can very well take the form of a bug list. However if so, bugs > should be opened that identify the overall main goals of the > release to which they're assigned. Where appropriate, all other > bugs should be identified as dependencies of those larger bugs.
I think this is really sensible and logical. w
