Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming

[Walter Bender]

I think we are all in complete agreement re predictable release
schedules. It is the naming scheme we are struggling with.

-walter

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Kent Loobey <kent at uoregon.edu> wrote:
> Here is my two cents on this subject.
>
>  start-of-rant
>
>  I worked for over ten years on a project that shipped software to states for
>  localization and redistribution to their schools every fall.
>
>  The following was true all of those years.
>
>  The people that did the redistribution wanted a predictable schedule of when
>  the software would arrive so that they could plan their work accordingly.
>
>  The states did localization and training on each release so they needed to
>  know what was going to change ahead of time.
>
>  Bug fixes that fixed show stopping bugs were welcome at any time.
>
>  They REALLY REALLY did not want to get releases at arbitrary times.
>
>  They were much more interested in things working than in getting the lastest
>  wiz-bang feature.
>
>  end-of-rant
>
>  It seems to me that having two releases each year would allow a region to
>  select the ONE that ties into their new school year the best.  To avoid use
>  of any one calendar the ship dates could be on the solstices.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Devel mailing list
>  Devel at lists.laptop.org
>  http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>