Release schedule plans

[Shane H. W. Travis]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:

> c) Abandon 2.18 and just release 2.20

This is a very interesting idea. Dave, you keep speaking about how stable
2.20 is, and how it would have had an RC a while back if 2.18 weren't in the
way. Since that's the case, what about amalgamating the existing code for
2.18 and 2.20 into one release, and *calling* it 2.18? That would allow us
to make use of the existing stability in (IMHO) a more effective way.
Basically... branch again with the EXISTING tip, and call that 2.18.

This way, the tip could be re-opened again for development, and the waiting
patches checked in. We then freeze again in March, just like originally
planned, but we freeze for 2.20 instead of 2.22.

Yes, I know that slips the posted schedule by six months out to infinity...
but in case nobody had noticed we're already at least six months behind. Why
not just *acknowledge* that fact and work with that reality so as to cause
ourselves as little pain as possible, rather than rushing three releases out
the door in four months? I mean, the thought of supporting six branches...
<shudder>

It just seems to me that if we've got two almost-completely-stable branches,
it's a damn shame to waste the publicity generated by releasing Our First
New Release In Three Years by putting out another one a couple of weeks
later, and then a third one a month or two after that.

Shane H.W. Travis       | The greatest of all mistakes is to do nothing
travis at sedsystems.ca    |  because you can only do a little.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan |   Do what you can.  -- Sydney Smith