| 1 |
On Wed, 05 May 2004 02:29:35 -0400 |
| 2 |
John Davis <zhen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I respect your opinion, but I do believe that you are rushing into a |
| 5 |
> decision that has no factual basis. Quarterly releases have not even |
| 6 |
> been going for a year and because of this there is not substantial |
| 7 |
> evidence against them. The fact is that quarterly releases benefit the |
| 8 |
> user as they are kept up to date every quarter. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If this isn't the point Kurt was trying to make, then consider it mine. :) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Historically, (not necessarily Gentoo) projects that have had a time based |
| 13 |
deadline over a "when it's done" type deadline end up suffering in |
| 14 |
features and overall quality to meet those deadlines. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
2004.0 and 2004.1 do show signs of this. If we are to continue to do time |
| 17 |
based releases, it is imperative that *all* of the needed adjustments to |
| 18 |
the tools and ebuilds be made *before* we even begin into the release |
| 19 |
cycle (minus the obvious security update exceptions). Having these things |
| 20 |
change while builds happen is not good for QA and for meeting deadlines. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Jason Wever |
| 24 |
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead |
Archives