On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > 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. > > it's only a real problem if the upgrade breaks all your apps and drivers every 6 months.