Agree, quarterly improves value delivered. Shorter release cycles accelerate feedback loops. Delivering updates more frequently, increases relevant insight into our user and technical performance needs. This allows for quicker course correction, reduces the risk of significant mis-direction or impacts of technology breakthroughs, and ultimately leads to a more responsive product. Semi-annual releases create extended feedback delays, and often breaches same developer availability working issues within the release. It's a serious hinderous to adapting and optimizing effectively.
Rather release 2 quality features quarterly, then 5 features semi-annually. Paul On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 12:40 PM James Dailey <jamespdai...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agree. We should be quarterly. > > Adam - do you wish to propose yourself as the Release Manager? > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 9:12 AM Ed Cable <edca...@mifos.org> wrote: > >> My aspiration was quarterly and I think we could meet that objective >> given volume of changes going forward - James/others what are your thoughts? >> >> Ed >> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 8:39 AM Adam Monsen <amon...@mifos.org> wrote: >> >>> Ed, James, anyone else interested: >>> >>> Looking forward at the calendar, I'm curious when we might want to do >>> another release. Maybe October, and shoot for April & October releases >>> going forward? >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Best, >>> -Adam >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Ed Cable* >> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative >> edca...@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649 >> >> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org >> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos> >> >> -- -- Paul
