Hanno Schlichting wrote:

What do you think about a 9 month release cycle?

Based on the Plone experience I think this is a good compromise, between
release often and stable releases.

The Plone experience as I see it is that we get some measure of contribution fatigue.

Take Plone 2.5 and 3.0. With the cycles of review bundles (similar to Zope proposals and discussions), development of new features, bug fixes, merging to alphas, releasing betas and rcs, we found that we basically had to get started on 3.0 just as (if not before) 2.5 final went out the door. That's pretty exhausting. People pull together on bugdays and their spare time to get a particular release out, and then they are being hounded for the next release already.

In other words - 6 months is a really short time, especially if you expect to have a reasonable alpha and beta cycle where things stabilise. And further, it's very hard to get people to work on two releases simultaneously (polishing x whilst starting on x+1).

I agree that 9 months is a better compromise. 12 months is a very long time. The other important thing is to manage scope - let people know quite early what is and what isn't in scope for a particular release and set clear, agreed-upon timelines for things like proposal deadlines, feature freezes, and alpha/beta releases.

Just my opinion, of course.


Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to