On 23/08/11 at 20:38 +0900, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
> Hello Lucas.
> 
> (08/23/2011 08:09 PM), Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I think that the current way of managing branches and releases of Ruby
> > is not optimal.
> 
> Indeed.  But I'm not sure if Linux-style release management works in this
> project.  Ruby is Ruby, not Linux.  Almost no programmers (except Matz) had
> been paid to run this project until recently.  I doubt a 6-month release
> cycle could hardly work for a hobby project like this.

Interesting. Why do you think so?

I don't really see a link between shorter release cycles and being able
to work full time on a project. It's true that it is easier to meet
deadlines when you work full-time on a project, but on the other hand,
shorter release cycles releave some pressure from developers, because,
if a feature can't make it into release 'n', it can still make it into
release 'n+1' which will be released in 6 months (and not in two years).

Lucas