On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 13:56 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote: > Hubert Figuiere wrote: > > 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. > > I have been thinking about this as well, just from observing how "shit > hits the fan" near the end of the cycle. > > I'd like to throw out a suggestion that perhaps GNOME should alternate > on a six-month-twelve-month release cycle, regardless of "major release" > or not. It might make planning a little more complicated, but I'm sure > it would be appreciated by developers and users alike. > I think 12 months is too much time. And if we need to do a major release, we can, for instance, branch now for gnome-2-18, do there only minor bugfixes and small feature additions for the upcoming 2-20 and, at the same time, dedicate the 12 months (2-18 + 2-20) to work on HEAD for the major release.
That is, there is nothing in the schedule preventing us from working on a major release for 1/1.5 years while at the same time keeping up with the 6-month release cycle. -- Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
