On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Dave Crossland <dave@...1555...> wrote:
On 10 June 2011 14:35, Josh Andler <scislac@...400...> wrote:
> we need to have a solid leading number because that matters
> (psychologically) to a number of users


More important than the number is the released cycle mode; is 'when
its ready' better than a fixed cycle?

Fixed cycle works in some projects very well, but given Inkscape's track record, I have a hard time seeing us being able to change to do that. Then again, anything is possible.

Adobe just switched from an 18-month to 2 year cycle for their products. So to me there is less incentive to make each release as "awesome packed" as in the past. So, us moving to a 3-month alternating cycle could be doable and healthy. 3 month new release, 3 month bugfix (unless needs to be pushed sooner or more frequently than the 3 month), repeat.

It would be nice to push a major version number in each distro cycle and to have a safe bugfix only release for distros to backport mid-cycle. Just my .02