Lamont R. Peterson wrote:
On Saturday 04 February 2006 01:06pm, Mike A. Harris wrote:
Lamont R. Peterson wrote: I think our 6 month cycle plan remains, but will likely vary depending on various factors. I'd like to see it be a 9 month cycle that can vary earlier or later though, but that's just my personal opinion. I dunno who else would agree with me on that. ;)
Now that you mention it, I like it. I would support the idea.
I like it too. Which means 1 or 2 releases a year. Seems enough time to make a stable release.