<br>
My vote would be for 3 - four month cycles per year.<br><br>
<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/20/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Khalid B</b> <<a href="mailto:kb@2bits.com">kb@2bits.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 2/20/06, Dries Buytaert <<a href="mailto:dries.buytaert@gmail.com">dries.buytaert@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> >> (Crazy idea: should 4.7 be renamed 5.0?<br>> >> Would it be better to call it 5.0?
<br>> > It would have been, but with several beta's already released it's<br>> > now too late. And besides if everyone listens to Adrian R. and<br>> > implements his crazy/brilliant ideas 4.7 *will* look like a point
<br>> > release compared to 4.8... =D<br>><br>> There a lot of crazy (yet cool) ideas shaping up for Drupal 4.8/5.0.<br>> People should already start preparing their patches; I hope to use<br>> much shorter development cycles in future aiming towards 2-3 releases
<br>> a year. I'm thinking about trying a time-based release cycle, where<br>> development is frozen at a predefined date. It sounds like something<br>> worth evaluating. It doesn't hurt to give it a try.<br><br>
A time based release cycle has merits.<br><br>It should not be more than 2 a year (one every 6 months), since it will<br>strain the community's resources.<br><br>Ubuntu was founded because of the frustration with Debian's lengthy
<br>release cycle, and do it twice yearly.<br></blockquote></div><br>