Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 07:52:49AM +0200, Dave Cotton wrote: >> Question really is who set the 6 month limit? If the mad rush to keep up >> with the cycle causes the problems that are occurring at the moment then >> it must be questioned. If the problem isn't faced up to, there may not >> be a requirement for a six month cycle in the future, there may not be a >> future. > > You have a question about that? I think the answer is obvious. > Mandrakesoft. There was some discussion about backing off on the rate > of releases a while back.
Mandrakesoft may be the obvious reason, but would it be a better release cycle? Presently I would even favor a 4 months release cycle. And there are far enough changes in the linux world in 4 months to justify a new release. I am convinced of several things : - a non fix release date is bad, because a release is never finished and we need to move on. - a too long release cycle is bad, because new computers does not work correctly without new XFree, new kernel and so on. - a too long release is bad because it means less pressure, ond good things only happen under pressure. -- Warly
