> > I am confused why we need to have a protocol where people have time to > plan?
Why not :)? Are protocols bad? From my experience, protocols only help clarify things. And it's not a 100 pages protocol -- the one that you've followed (even though not written one) makes sense to me. But then, we didn't make it to the target date eventually ... > So why would you be against releasing it, if its better? I'm not against releasing, just was taken by surprise and intended to have a few more issues in 3.2. I didn't vote -1, just asked if Mike will be willing to allow for 1 more week. Isn't it true that what we have now in 3.2 is better than 3.1? True Any issues can be fixed in 3.3, we could do this a week later if we wanted. True. Only thought that we might want to give people time to ensure that things that are important to them are included in 3.2. But I don't want to hold off that release. Surely Mike has taken a great step towards "releasing more often", so I'm willing to give that process a try :). Shai > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote: > > > from releasing. However, by following a certain protocol about a release, > we > > give people enough time to prepare for it. > > I am confused why we need to have a protocol where people have time to > plan? > > Isn't it true that what we have now in 3.2 is better than 3.1? So why > would you be against releasing it, if its better? > > Any issues can be fixed in 3.3, we could do this a week later if we wanted. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
