Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

[Milan Crha <mcrha redhat com>]

On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 10:10 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> Increasingly I'm feeling like the traditional 6-month release cycle is
> just too short for Evolution.

        Hi,
I'm replying slightly later, I was thinking of this a bit. Generally
I agree, I also feel like the 6-month release cycle is too short for any
extensive work. 12-month might be better, even it brings more work to
us. For a good reason, of course.

> * Bump Evolution's major version number to split away from GNOME's
>   semi-annual release numbering.  Call the upcoming March 2014 release
>   Evolution 4.0 (or perhaps even Evolution 2014... I'm open to ideas).

I would not bump the version, let's just slow down. One cannot do major
rewrites all the time, the dust should settle one day, and then we might
get back to sync with GNOME releases, and possibly also version. The
GtkHTML version is the example for me, when we couldn't do that, when
other evolution products were version-synced with GNOME version, for
easier recognition which GNOME version this is supposed to work on.

> * We would continue releasing stable updates and development snapshots
>   at a steady pace.  Our release schedule could even be more predictable
>   than it is now.  We could do, for example, stable releases on the 1st
>   Monday of each month and development snapshots on the 3rd Monday.

I can imagine a simple .ics file on http://projects.gnome.org/evolution
page with the release schedule, like the one for GNOME releases
exists :)

        Bye,
        Milan