6-month cycle

by havoc

Adding to my previous post a bit, regarding the
6-month cycle
: I don’t think going 6 to 9 months is at all useful
for enabling GNOME 3. GNOME 3 is a bigger effort than that. We should
pick the release cycle to benefit GNOME 2, not GNOME 3. And I think
GNOME 2 is running pretty smoothly (well, there are some issues but I
would not blame the release dates). Larger changes can be done in 12
months rather than 6 by just skipping a cycle for a particular
component. We’ve done this in a number of cases. 9 months is long
enough to start causing the problems we were trying to avoid when we
created the time-based release approach. Even if we don’t think enough
cool stuff happens in 6 months, I’d argue that changing to 7 is better
than changing to 9.

(This post was originally found at http://log.ometer.com/2005-04.html#21.2)

My Twitter account is @havocp.
Interested in becoming a better software developer? Sign up for my email list and I'll let you know when I write something new.
Email *