From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 31 08:16:05 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id IAA08973 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 08:16:05 -0700 Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [192.216.222.3]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA08458 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 08:15:27 -0700 Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226]) by who.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) with ESMTP id IAA11973 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 08:09:31 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA10133; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 07:48:08 -0700 To: Robert Withrow cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Test/Release cycle. In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 31 Aug 1995 10:09:37 EDT." <199508311409.KAA07635@spooky.rwwa.com> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 07:48:08 -0700 Message-ID: <10131.809880488@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk 30 days is certainly what we've planned. Jordan > 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 >