From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 31 06:59:21 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id GAA05912 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 06:59:21 -0700 Received: from spooky.rwwa.com (rwwa.com [198.115.177.3]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id GAA05905 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 06:59:19 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spooky.rwwa.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA07635 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 10:09:37 -0400 Message-Id: <199508311409.KAA07635@spooky.rwwa.com> X-Authentication-Warning: spooky.rwwa.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5.3 12/28/94 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Test/Release cycle. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 10:09:37 -0400 From: Robert Withrow Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Something that bothers me is the (to me at least) unbelivably short 12 day Test/release time for 2.0.5. The Alpha was released and 12 days later 2.0.5 was released. I wonder if I am alone in thinking that that is *way* too short of a time? I wonder if the release team tends to get a bad case of release itis? It seems to me like 30 days would be a more reasonable period, and if substantial problems show up, there should be another period with another release. After all, almost *any* bug found in a pre-release kit should be considered serious. Almost all (substantial) bugs should have been removed by that time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430 Net: witr@rwwa.COM R.W. Withrow Associates, 319 Lynnway Suite 201, Lynn MA 01901 USA