[rfc] six-month stable release cycles

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 12:55 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> 
> 
> So there's a question of labeling and a question of substance.  If
> wanted to stick with this scheme but make the development releases
> have less scary names we could call them 2.90 etc.  However, following
> all the development releases really is going to give you a quite
> different experience, therefore I think they should look a bit
> different. 

I suggest "next" rather than beta. It has the same connotation of 'not
the stable release', but for me isn't a negative label, whereas beta is.

-Rob

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090731/5537255e/attachment-0001.pgp