From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Yates Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Move to a cadence release model? Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:57:07 -0500 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b677b24d92ed30524301515 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447163879 27795 80.91.229.3 (10 Nov 2015 13:57:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:57:59 +0000 (UTC) To: Emacs developers Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 10 14:57:46 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zw9QW-0003cq-Dn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:57:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59972 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zw9QV-0003yl-TS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:57:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48555) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zw9Q5-0003vU-1B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:57:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zw9Q4-0007YU-AW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:57:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]:34927) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zw9Q4-0007Xh-1b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:57:08 -0500 Original-Received: by pasz6 with SMTP id z6so242495840pas.2 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:57:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=cawWi+C1gWGFGsd5r9FbZKIRLXijxId5eslGIRX5iOA=; b=kFKookAdu8oi8bYPgyxf4qTKOkcODtr2p1hAbM/RA+9dSZieUG8bdKHouzSYKssUdn MUCPfAL87nqCuUGChAyQiZk6C9a2B3Ww3T8pZJltbGdwHlaPd01K8bPJF/pr9ZE1LmAn mDAtqr1eR3YFyiQKAYSDu8lXotZ2KY1dzm5+QMK/imqJGohaE2JqE3jj5jIdRHbbvLrR EgOpD5QY4cVkJ0jEahqOHZ0nxiKbaTBBm5UxYLWPsAoo/ihG06it9XuX/GbH2UtzFcoY BsTWHsTEahcE/Ce5BTiRV00VzIXeaiRUAvGP3lyLH1EeVHCHWBneJLWftB5dEmRTvW2+ 6D9w== X-Received: by 10.66.146.130 with SMTP id tc2mr5846467pab.26.1447163827136; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:57:07 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.66.159.101 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:57:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Sender-Auth: eJD3vyvj4WIoNg4X1NeswWlSgvo X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:193851 Archived-At: --047d7b677b24d92ed30524301515 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 With a new master at the helm and various changes being contemplated I would like to see some discussion of moving to a cadence release model. I have been impressed with open source projects that have made the change. I am now employed at Mathworks which ships mission critical software to very large enterprise customers on a 6 month cadence. The biggest shift I see is away from wondering when the correct collection of features, bug fixes, whatever have been accumulated to whether those that have been accumulated are individually sufficiently cooked to ship. Developers feel less urge to squeeze a not fully baked feature into the current release when they can count on the next opportunity being only a cadence interval in the future. /john --047d7b677b24d92ed30524301515 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
With a new master at the helm and various changes being co= ntemplated I would like to see some discussion of moving to a cadence relea= se model.

I have been impressed with open source project= s that have made the change.=C2=A0 I am now employed at Mathworks which shi= ps mission critical software to very large enterprise customers on a 6 mont= h cadence.

The biggest shift I see is away from wo= ndering when the correct collection of features, bug fixes, whatever have b= een accumulated to whether those that have been accumulated are individuall= y sufficiently cooked to ship.=C2=A0 Developers feel less urge to squeeze a= not fully baked feature into the current release when they can count on th= e next opportunity being only a cadence interval in the future.
<= br>
/john
--047d7b677b24d92ed30524301515--