On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Andres Löh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andres@well-typed.com" target="_blank">andres@well-typed.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
</div>I'm not a huge fan of quarterly release schedules. They hardly leave<br>
you any time to actually do anything.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's not actually true. A release adds pressure to make the code actually work, and having the code out in the wild gives useful feedback to people who are doing the work in the first place. A long release cycle decouples writing code from seeing anyone use it, which seriously deflates the incentive to do any work in the first place.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I already work on a busy open source project that has quarterly releases, and it works just fine, up to and including large modifications.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'd much rather have a release<br>
schedule that's predictably in sync with GHC releases,</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Quarterly releases can easily be synced to GHC releases. The two are not in conflict. </div></div>