Re: release policy

[Peter O'Gorman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
|>>We can always choose to stick with a troublesome stable branch for
|>>longer if it turns out to need more work to iron out any bugs and
|>>regressions rather than ploughing on with another head release...
|>>thoughts?
|>
|>
|>Yes, just one: this is INSANE.

I like the idea (stolen from gcc) of deciding at the start what features
need to go into the next feature release, and not allowing others to be
added until after release. Features can, of course, be removed.

By limiting the number/scope of features in each release a more frequent
release schedule is possible.

Does this sound reasonable?

Peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin)

iQCVAwUBQy1bw7iDAg3OZTLPAQJIagP/eVXdrMLcnRBQkV33Hl4ClWLvKKAhzEH/
xSNsdGRbbcWnfKfIibgdtj8wR2IQq6RRcjKns+HKBp0UMEc+uivVKiWvfCgzOc7L
jow1VmNC2brM04uL7kE+D0HjzMEpFLk8kyf9kbq94VwL/yaKs81VUy7LPxmBdN41
UuyZwWOzMbM=
=IEFT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----