Release Cycle

[Jos Poortvliet]

On Monday 19 August 2013 21:18:52 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday, August 19, 2013 16:52:28 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > which would be more likely May/June if we stick to five month cycle. Note:
> > one of the outcomes of the "shorter release cycle" BOF at Akademy was that
> > we might re-evaluate the situation after the 4.11 release. So in external
> > communication I would not yet settle for a date because it could be
> > anywhere between the three months later as proposed by Alex and return to
> > six months as it used to be.
> 
> imho, that’s fine. we can say we are planning 4.13 for August 2014, and if
> we end up changing our mind we can announce that later as a clarification.
> 
> we really don’t know if there will be shorter cycles after 4.11, so the
> default expectation is to keep doing releases every six months. until we
> know otherwise, that is the default plan.
> 
> by saying that we currently plan on 4.13 in august 2014 we communicate to
> the outside world that we have a roadmap. this is quite true, as can be
> seen by the amount of thought going in this exact topic by so many people
> from so many different angles (promo, apps, workspaces ...)
> 
> so my recommendation is to go with Jos’ outline and if we change course for
> 4.12/4.13 announce that then.
> 
> really the worst thing we can do for external confidence is say “we don’t
> know”, because that translates externally to “we aren’t planning”. but we
> are planning. so we do know. and that’s what we need to communicate.

Does this "let's go with Jos' roadmap" include the Plasma- and Frameworks 
proposal? Obviously we would make clear that, this being a major transition, 
people should expect changes in the roadmap...

/J
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20130822/3941e5c1/attachment.sig>