From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: Instituting feature and infrastructure enhancement proposal window? Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:52:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20080225005254.GJ8410@spearce.org> References: <7v8x1ataiu.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 25 01:54:01 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JTRbP-0007bv-KX for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:53:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755204AbYBYAxF (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:53:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754827AbYBYAxE (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:53:04 -0500 Received: from corvette.plexpod.net ([64.38.20.226]:60314 "EHLO corvette.plexpod.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753394AbYBYAxD (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:53:03 -0500 Received: from cpe-74-70-48-173.nycap.res.rr.com ([74.70.48.173] helo=asimov.home.spearce.org) by corvette.plexpod.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JTRaJ-0002DN-5Y; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:52:47 -0500 Received: by asimov.home.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8DA6520FBAE; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:52:55 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - corvette.plexpod.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - spearce.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > The important dates in the above would be (in parentheses are my > > straw-mans): > > So I would basically cut you target timeframes into half (except for the > first -rc release - there's no point in making that less than a week). > Three months is just going to make people who miss the release window > antsy. It's what the kernel has in practice, and I would *not* advocate it > as ideal - I actually aim for 2 months and we then invariably slip a bit.. > > So I'd suggest: > - first -rc in 1 week > - window closes in 3 weeks > - next release in 6 weeks > - rinse and repeat Yea, I agree with Linus suggestion of cutting the time windows down to closer to 2 months per release. 1.5.4 took a long time. It doesn't really affect me as I usually run the bleeding edge 'next', but I think most of our users feel warm and fuzzy about running a released version. As a community we need to help Junio get stable releases out more often, so users can benefit from the improvements we've made. -- Shawn.