PulkoMandy <pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Release cycle should be every 6 months (+ or - 1 month). > > That's about the time span I had in mind too. [...] > > CU, Ingo > I don't want to upgrade that often. The only other OS around doing > 6-months cycles is ubuntu, and it does not look to work so well. I > must say I prefer a feature-based release cycle, with a list of > features to have (and not to have, eventually), and release when > that's ready. The cycles could be short depending on the feature set. > But I'd say a release every 2 years is still fine for most people. No one forces you to upgrade that often. Fact is, it's much harder to plan a feature set to be implemented in 2 years, than it is to plan one that can be implemented in 6 months. The longer your cycle, the more probable it is that you can't achieve it. It's also more rewarding for the developers to see their fruits being exposed more often, and earlier. You particularly can't use Ubuntu to judge the usefulness of a short release cycle. They rely on so many 3rd party products (they don't have in perfect control), they usually cannot achieve a good performance, and break a lot of things with every update due to that. It's therefore usually not a good idea to use a Linux distribution with a short release cycle that tend to be up to date with everything in the first few months after the release. OTOH this also pushes development, and makes sure the code gets exposure, and bugs get fixed. It's just not user friendly (including the fact that every update seems to break the software you installed outside of their package management). Bye, Axel.