Hi, As much a fan I am for 'release early release often', I have a feeling that two months of development may not yield enough changes to fully constitute a release (just a feeling though). So would it be sensible to do 4 month develop/test/release cycle rather than a 3 month one ? (3 months development ,1 month test/bugfix/document altogether 3 releases per year) The time gap allows the gathering of more usecases and gives people room to play around. By the time we get to the next 'bug fix' stage, people would have played around with the earlier release and found all the issues.
Ajith On 12/19/06, Deepal Jayasinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am big +1 for this approach. Let's start that process immediately after 1.1.1 release . Thanks Deepal Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: >Folks, I'd like to suggest that we try to do 3-monthly releases .. with >2 months of development and one more of wrapping up / packaging. I'm >motivated to suggest this after the debacle of the 1.1 release .. we >spent more than *6 months* releasing it and to me that's just crazy. > >Release early, release often is an important open source mantra. Given >that we're still in a fairly rapid innovation mode, this is even more >important. > >This also will force us to work thru a bit of a roadmap so users know >what features to expect in what version (to whatever extent possible to >do that in an open source project .. I'm not suggesting we plan >everything). > >Thoughts? > >Sanjiva. > > -- Thanks, Deepal ................................................................ "The highest tower is built one brick at a time" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Ajith Ranabahu --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
