Re: getting on a longer release cycled

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 19:51 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 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. 
> > 
> > There have been a large pimping of project Topaz, and I strongly believe that 
> > this is the kind of goal that would need a longer development cycle for a big 
> > leap forward towards world domination.
> > 
> > Why not thinking for after 2.18 starting on a 12 to 18 month release cycle. We 
> > must have a FIRM date (eventually flexible), but more importantly a FIRM 
> > features goal (eventually adapted to not become a Death March).
> > 
> > What do people think?
> > 
> 
> I think its worth experimenting with a longer release cycle but I would 
> start at 9 months and see if that improves things before considering a 
> 12 month or 18 month cycle.
> 
> I dont know how topaz will transpire but I feel it should be written in 
> a native high level language like D or Vala as its likely to be a 
> rewrite of much of the existing code and could be doable in 9 months 
> with a more productive language.
> 
if we rewrite "much of the existing code", I think we would need much more than 9 months :-)
-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>