On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Roger Luedecke
Poll on Google plus with over 1200 respondents shows 89% of our users support an annual release cycle. https://plus.google.com/110312141834246266844/posts/g5FdGJ9iSqB
I think we should however restructure the way we do releases in order to minimize the bumpiness of release. I propose a pseudo-annual release cycle. The idea being that our current state of release is messy at best and could use some last minute repository fixing and bug swatting. I propose that we esentially make the way we release now 'open-beta' at the 11th month.
We then use the 12th month to get all repos online and fixed. Also would be a good chance to give us about a month to fix problems with our disc images, and remaster the 'open-beta' 11th month GM with patches and hardware support fixes.
With this scheme we should see much smoother official release days by essentially duping the users into considering the state we currently call release to be beta, and giving us a month to clean things up.
Question is, if having this marked beta will cause more testing than having it marked release candidate. Because there's already a lengthy time during which the images are released as "release candidate" and there still isn't enough bug swatting happening during that time. Will a beta period improve things? Also, in my lingo, beta < rc. Perhaps it's just a matter of sticking with RC longer and advertising and calling for testing more prominently. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org