stu at asyn.com
Sun Jan 23 04:53:31 UTC 2005
Christopher Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> I'm suggesting that we revisit that logic. One can make an argument
>> for "releases every X months", for most sane values of X, but I can't
>> see an argument for "freezes every X months". How is the date of a
>> freeze important? Surely it's the release date you are trying to hit
>> that's the important thing.
> Having the freeze dates be something that people know from remember
> when it happened last year seems more important than exactly when we
> release to the world. As long as there's been a release in the last
> year the user is going to feel like we're making progress, but the
> developers care about the exact freeze data because presumably they
> have something that they want in before the freeze.
At the risk of being redundant, I will try to restate my earlier comment.
I believe it would be best if Bugzilla would Freeze X months after
release. This gives X months of active development, and allows for
releases approximately every X+1 month.
You don't find yourself running up against a fixed release date, causing
artificial pressure. (If this were a company with all paid developers,
rather than the large number of volunteers, the fixed release dates
could work. But figure out why you're doing it.)
More information about the developers