Re: Moduleset Reorganization -- Take two

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 15:28 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> 
> This was mentioned later in the proposal: we encourage app developers
> to
> follow the GNOME schedule. But if they don't, they need to publish
> their
> schedule.
> 
> We think most people will adopt the GNOME schedule, but some app
> developers might have different needs. For example, I talked to the
> Shotwell developers at GUADEC, and they currently use cycles that are
> much shorter than six months.
> 
> What matters is that there is a documented schedule, and that there
> are
> proper freezes. It doesn't have to be the GNOME schedule, although
> it's
> nicer for us. 

Then I think your proposal will be a complete disaster. I'm horrified
that we must again justify the existence of a shared release schedule
and of a release-team that keeps modules on that schedule.

This is little more than killing the GNOME release process just because
you have forgotten why we needed it in the first place.

-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com