On 09/18/2012 04:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:06:16 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
Personally I'm very much for sticking to the 8 months. 12 months is too darn long for users and developers alike - and 6 months is too short.
I agree. We are already catching heat because 12.2 contains KDE 4.8.x and not 4.9.x. Why do anything to make that sort of situation worse? Just because we had one delayed release is no reason to discard the 8 month cycle.
Is it necessarily true that extending the development cycle would make this worse? Whatever release cycle we use, there's going to be component projects (KDE, GNOME, etc) that are close to release or early in their release cycle.
I don't know that extending the release cycle makes this problem worse (defined as "a more frequent occurrence") - or is there another factor that I'm missing here?
If you just miss a major release, users have to wait until the next release. The probability of just missing does not change unless the release cycle of the product matches the oS release, only the time until the new version is part of openSUSE. Larry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org