[rfc] six-month stable release cycles

[Aaron Bentley]

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

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Guy Gascoigne-Piggford wrote:
>> Strongly seconded.

> Heck, when we get to the point of stable-every-6-months... if you are
> running code that is 6mo out of date, does it really matter if it takes
> an extra day to get it to you?

I think it kinda does.  People are going to react when the release
announcement is made.  They'll hit the download page and try to install
this release.  If they can't easily install it, they'll be disappointed.
 And they may forget to check back every few days for updated packages.
  I think we get the best bang the buck if people can easily install bzr
when they get the release announcement.

Maybe we need to distinguish between "Going gold" and "Released".  So
when we've decided which version of the code we'll release, it has "gone
gold", and we put a brief announcement in bazaar at lists.canonical.com
only.  When we have the major installers and packages ready, we declare
it "released", and announce it as we normally announce releases.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkpwlTcACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI2n9gCfeS8I8P2q+jvGtM4MaCIqcVuQ
54sAn3ms+8tjFsQA9nvKYMb1B7btuXWM
=uWIm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----