Re: getting on a longer release cycled

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 13:56 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> > I would like to suggest at one point to try to break with the 6 month release 
> > schedule of Gnome to do a "major" release with a certain number of feature 
> > that would involve possible infrastructure changes in the platform. 
> 
> I have been thinking about this as well, just from observing how "shit 
> hits the fan" near the end of the cycle.
> 
> I'd like to throw out a suggestion that perhaps GNOME should alternate 
> on a six-month-twelve-month release cycle, regardless of "major release" 
> or not. It might make planning a little more complicated, but I'm sure 
> it would be appreciated by developers and users alike.
> 
I think 12 months is too much time. And if we need to do a major
release, we can, for instance, branch now for gnome-2-18, do there only
minor bugfixes and small feature additions for the upcoming 2-20 and, at
the same time, dedicate the 12 months (2-18 + 2-20) to work on HEAD for
the major release.

That is, there is nothing in the schedule preventing us from working on
a major release for 1/1.5 years while at the same time keeping up with
the 6-month release cycle.
-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>