Jonas Häggqvist wrote:
> Only one: I think it should be 4 months between releases, to leave a
> longer window for features to go in and mature. I think the amount of
> people who'd run a 3-month old stable build, but not a 4-month old one, is
> vanishingly small, so adding that extra month probably won't inconvenience
> a lot of users.
>
>
Is there something that "4 months is enough to get new features in, but
3 months isn't" is based on, or is it more "with 4 releases a year, we
lose 4 weeks to freezing, and 4 weeks to 'not frozen, but there's a
branch to be aware of' while with 3 releases a year, it's one week less
lost to each"?

I mean, I understand that viewpoint, I just want to know if there's a
little more to it than that.
Received on 2008-11-08