On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 12:59 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote: > I would like to suggest at one point to try to break with the 6 month release > schedule of Gnome to do a "major" release with a certain number of feature > that would involve possible infrastructure changes in the platform. > Not sure whether the situations are similar, but I don't think this went well for Ubuntu. In hind sight, I don't believe there was much of a benefit of stretching the dapper release cycle by 6 weeks. We got 6 more weeks of bug fixing, sure, but we also got 6 more weeks of bug development. The fact is that whatever your release cycle length, things always fall in the same places. What would work better would be if features were actively developed for the 2.20 release at the same time as things were being developed for the 2.18 release, so that the release schedule remains the same but the development focus can be different. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part