On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 10:36 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:29 PM, David Farning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Two releases per year make sense. Particularly when add in the fact that > > we have two hemispheres with opposing springs and falls. > > Only if you assume we can get countries in lockstep with us. Any > number of things can distract the local team from making the upgrade, > and - wham - they'll be unsupported. When it happens, rather than > leaving them in the cold I suspect we'll end up with 3 or 4 versions > to support - > > > One way of handling the 'stale' issue is to detach activity releases > > from OS releases. I currently am working on modifying > > addons.mozilla.org to serve activities for > > activities.sugarlabs.org. > > Sugar and activities can be making releases a lot more often - and I > think OLPC should be doing the same. It only makes sense to tag a > long-term-support release once you've been making smaller ones.
As Kim stated earlier, in the end this becomes a cost of effort issue. >From a developer point of view the more releases the better. From a support perspective maintaining several long releases can quickly suck the energy from a project. Dfarning _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
