6-weeks release cycle

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 06:00:46 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Of many things that Rust got right, this is, in my opinion, 
> something they did wrong. Quick release cycles only make sense 
> in both bleeding edge model and with availability of excess 
> developer resources. No amount of planning and management can 
> compensate for things not being ready.

I think that it's probably fine to target a six week release 
cycle, but I also don't think that we should be slaves to it. I 
think that it's far more important to do our best to avoid 
regressions than to get releases out the door at given intervals.

But regardless, we do need folks championing the release process, 
or it's not going to work very well. Martin seems to have been 
doing a good job of it, but all it would take is him being 
unavailable for a few weeks for releases to falter. And I'm not 
sure that we really have enough people to afford to have an 
actual team of folks focusing on releases rather than a single 
individual who's making sure that it gets done.

- Jonathan M Davis