[rfc] six-month stable release cycles

[Talden]

> I'm *never* going to promise day-0 packages. Between coordinating
> timezones, vacation schedules, level of development activity, bugfixing,
> etc. Packaging is important, it certainly isn't the most important thing.

As long as, when we do a product release announcement, we are clear
that packaging announcements are forthcoming I see no problem.

> 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 running code that is 6mo out of date, does it really matter if it takes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?

Given that people do go straight to the page after seeing a release
announcement (myself included), I edited the link text for the windows
installer to clarify the bazaar version of that link.  It has not been
uncommon for the top of the download page to declare version X
availability while the windows binary continues to be X-1 for as long
as a week. Only the URL of the link indicated this.

Being clear about packaging availability is very important - having
them available 0-day in a 6mo cycle shouldn't be.

--
Talden