On Friday, September 21, 2012 01:07:05 Markus wrote:
"DuBois, Scott L." <ranger@roguehorse.com> wrote:
From what I'm reading in this thread, it sounds like an annual release would be beneficial all around starting with next years first annual kick-off of openSUSE 13.
Why is the default solution to problems always "lengthen the release cycle by 2 months" anyway? Once problems arose, the cycle was first lengthened from 6 months to 8, then 12.2 took 10 months and now 12 months are being discussed.
Seriously: lengthening the cycle didn't work in the past. Why would it suddenly work?
'just' making the release cycle longer is of course no solution to anything. It does give us a longer supported release cycle - something MANY of our users want. It also gives us the ability to, say, plan longer stabilization phases. And have a smarter release date (the moving date sucks - picking, say, November 20 2013 as release date means we get AND the latest GNOME and KDE, AND we release a while after Ubuntu and Fedora, benefiting from bugfixes for issues they bumped into. For example). And obviously, it does lower the amount of release management work on a year, although it might create a higher peak - depending on how we do it. It also possibly creates a marketing issue (less releases is less attention) but that is also something I think we can work with. So, a 1 year cycle is as much a means in itself as it is meant to solve a problem.