David Anderson writes:
> * Peter N. Lundblad <peter@famlundblad.se> [2006-04-06 22:04:37]:
> > It is now 3 months since we released 1.3.0 (and six months since we
> > branched). I think we have enough on trunk to warrant branching for
> > 1.4.
>
> An here was I writing in the RM guide that the usual delay is around 4
> months :-) (otoh, I also wrote it is feature and community driven, not
> time driven).
I didn't mean to imply that it is time driven. But looking at the
dicsussions from January some of us strongly object to a too short
release cycle. I just wanted to point out that we're at six months if
we branch in ttwo weeks, which doesn't seem too short:-)
> > If we branch at the proposed date, then give it some weeks to
> > stabilize before RC, some more weeks for RC trouble (which we can hope
> > we don't have:-) and a month for soak. Then, we might release in late
> > June, making us roll 1.4.0 about 6 months after 1.3.0. Given the list
> > of improvements and the timing, I think starting the release process
> > soon is appropriate.
> >
> > Any opinions about this?
>
> Good sense of timing :-)
We'll see if that holds:-)
> Preparing the RM hat to branch/stuff when people are happy with it,
Great!
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 7 14:15:20 2006