I think the abbreviated time table is appropriate. I know 2.5 got delayed for a lot of good reasons (and that I agreed with) but I don't want to see the ongoing schedule shifted due to it.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Dan Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > First, thank you to everyone for the show of support in keeping me on for > 2.6. A few people did express concern that I might be over-burdened as I > continue as the maintainer for 2.5. I think that concern is valid, but I > think we can also take a wait-and-see approach to the issue. My brief > experience with maintaining 2.5 leads me to believe that packaging a > release is more about achieving the necessary focus than about the actual > time involved, so it's my hope that handling two releases will give me some > economies of scale, so to speak. We shall see, and I won't hesitate to ask > for help if needed. > > Second, I want to solicit feedback on a preliminary timeline for 2.6. As > stated before, I think we will be best served to have an abbreviated > release which gets us back on our March/September timeline. With that in > mind, here is what I am thinking: > > alpha (bugs targetted) - Jan. 16 > alpha cut - Jan. 21 > beta (bugs targetted) - Feb. 4 > beta cut - Feb. 11 > RC (bugs targetted) - Mar. 4 > RC - Mar. 6 > > Of these dates, the most meaningful is of course the beta cutoff, which > would effectively be Feb. 4. I am also scheduling the longest > review/commit period for the beta release, since I expect there to be the > usual bulge of pullrequests. > > So, do we collectively think this is doable? If not, what adjustments > should we consider? > > Thanks for your thoughts, > Dan -- Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, York County Library System "You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me." -- C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis>
