On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > I think marking both as Rejected would be an accurate reflection of > python-dev's collective opinion. Slight correction: I think it would accurately reflect python-dev's *divided* opinion, using the principle of "Status quo wins a stalemate". The costs for either scheme are high, the benefits are not proven, thus the default is to stick with the status quo. Releasing alphas early, OTOH, doesn't require any real changes to our development process at all, aside from imposing a bit more discipline on trunk development in the first 12 months of the release cycle (I'm inclined to place that particular detail on the "benefit" side of the ledger, rather than the "cost" side). The *total* number of releases from the release managers and installer builders shouldn't increase much, if at all - I'd suggest we just stick with Georg's practice of 4 alpha releases, and merely space them out over the course of the release cycle rather than clustered together at the end. If Larry doesn't want to try this for 3.4, then I'll most likely volunteer as 3.5 RM and try it out then. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4