From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101001/000610.html | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101001/000610.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101001/000610.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101001/000610.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101001/000610.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9bf3e0bba --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20101001/000610.html @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] How will be the realese cycle? + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] How will be the realese cycle?

+ Sorteal + sorteal at gmail.com +
+ Fri Oct 1 18:21:43 CEST 2010 +

+
+ +
I think that from both a financial and technological point of view Mageia
+should have two releases a year.  With the rate at which Linux technology
+increases it makes a lot of sense to have a release every 6 months.  Also, I
+do agree that using the year number for each release is very handy.
+
+-Jason A. Turner
+
+2010/10/1 Maurice Batey <maurice at bcs.org.uk>
+
+> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:51:34 +0300, atilla ontas wrote:
+>
+> > I'm just wondering if we follow Mandriva's release cycle model. Every
+> > 6th months a release or one year and one release. I think we should
+> > make one release in one year.
+>
+>   I feel the same way, but from an income point of view Mageia would
+> probably be better off with 2 per year.
+>
+> >  Do we follow Mandriva's release naming scheme? I.e.
+> > do we call our first release 2011.x ?
+>
+>   Incorporating  the year number is a big help.
+>
+> --
+> /\/\aurice
+>
+>
+>
+-------------- next part --------------
+An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
+URL: </pipermail/mageia-dev/attachments/20101001/c90d9d83/attachment.html>
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1