EXreaction wrote:Fast releases are not what mature software is about. When there is an update every month it will cost you 6x what it would to run this software over a 6 month update cycle. This software is pretty stable and relatively bug free. More updates just means a lot more work for everybody.
well, this is a legitimate question:
what is the optimal release cycle for mature software?
let's look at the extremes:
clearly, releasing a new version every day does not make sense.
similarly, releasing every two years is obviously too slow.
so we can probably agree that the optimal cycle is somewhere between daily and one/2 years.
there are arguments why faster is better and other arguments why slower is better, and we can rehash them.
you phrased half of the argument why low frequency is good. the other half is that too short cycle means inadequate testing.
the other side is also valid: if i report a bug, and maybe even post a patch that fixes this bug, i do not want to wait a year for my fix to make it into upstream. too sleepy release cycle will cause the project to hibernate and many people will go and play elsewhere.
so what *is* the optimal frequency?
looking at leading OS projects (linux kernel, firefox, others), it seem to me that the most successful projects gravitate towards roughly 3-4 releases/year (which is curiously also 3-4 months per cycle).
as long we are at it, i may also add that the successful projects also tend to have more RC releases than phpbb, with the first RC typically around the middle of the cycle, or at 2/3 of the way at the latest.
phpbb uses a much shorter RC cycle, with only one or two RCs, typically 2 weeks each. i would keep the 2 weeks, but move to 2-3 RCs and 3-4 months/release. making the release a bit more predictable will be an icing on the cake.
that does not mean that the current situation is bad, it just means that one community member (myself) thinks that some minor changes will be an improvement.