Time based releases?

[Ian Monroe]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Mark Kretschmann <kretschmann at kde.org> wrote:
> An "ad-hoc fashion" would be the exact opposite of what I was
> proposing, if you think about it.

No its not. There are feature release where a release only occurs when
its "finished" and then there are scheduled releases. You're just
proposing a variation of how to set the schedule. The opposite would
be something like "lets do the 2.2 release when UPnP support is
awesome."

> It would imply that we wouldn't have
> a predictable release cycle, which is exactly what we had before. So
> I'm not sure that I can agree with that.

I remember we had a 2-week release cycle for some point releases, but
I don't remember us ever having a set release cycle in general.

> However, if you just mean "let's add a certain amount of flexibility",
> this could be talked about. E.g. if we end up with a really buggy
> product after four months, then we will probably have to add some more
> time for debugging.
>
> But the important point is to at least try sticking to a fixed cycle,
> in my opinion.

I see a lot of benefit of a scheduled release cycle vs. a feature
release cycle. But I don't see the benefit of a set schedule over
setting a schedule for each release individually. Doing it for each
release lets us think about the distro release dates, what sort of
features we want to implement, GSoC etc.

Ian