Re: getting on a longer release cycled

[Rob Adams <readams readams net>]

So clearly we need to choose a number relatively prime to 12 if this is
desirable.  With 9 months there's only 4 possible months for release.
If you did, say, 7 months, then you'd never repeat a month until you'd
hit 'em all :-)

-Rob

On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 10:43 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> Elijah Newren wrote:
> > I used to be firmly in favor of the 6-month cycle, but I found
> > Andrew's argument quite convincing and it has turned me into more of a
> > fence sitter for now.  It isn't yet clear to me that a change would be
> > a definite improvement, let alone enough of a benefit to merit the
> > change in the process, but that may well change.
> 
> I think this is why an alternating 6 and 12 month cycle would be nice. A 
> 9 month cycle would be even more interesting, because the dates would 
> not always fall at the same times.
> 
> --Pat
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>