Just throwing this idea out there, but what about padding the release by a month, but starting the release process at the same time? This gives the benefit of having of having fixed time range releases, but also gives a month of padding for any issues that come up with the release process. Like I said, I'm just throwing this idea out there, haven't fully thought it through, but I'm +1 to either this approach or the approach you outlined above.
-Russell On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yep. One that date we can look at master and see what we have. If we have > > any features, then we bump the minor version. If we have anything that > > breaks backwards compatibility, then we bump the major. > > So that means we have no guarantees of any kind on how long we go > between feature releases, which also means our shortest possible > maintenance window for old release might be something like 8-10 weeks? > > I mean, personally I'm fine with this, I always keep up to date with > the latest release anyway. But what you're proposing here seems like a > somewhat big deal for those slightly more enterprisey types who like > themselves some stability, instead of forcing to be upgraded to a > release with new features (and consequently, new bugs). > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan >
