Doug,

I think that andreas is right. If we could have shorter and denser 
release cycles this would be good
(if we can sustain it :)).

Stef


> Hi,
>
>>> Well, if the other Guides think this sounds reasonable - and the VM
>>> port maintainers, then why not. We could instead focus on changing
>>> the development process during these months.
>>
>> This sounds generally reasonable to me.  The one modification I'd make
>> is that we should still allow the usual fixes and small
>> enhancements/refactorings to be harvested from the BFAV during this
>> release.  (There is already a backlog of approved items from 3.7beta.)
>
> That was implicit in saying let's go to beta quickly - beta is for 
> fixes and
> some other small enhancements or refactorings won't hurt, I think. The 
> point
> would be to get past alpha fairly quickly.
>
>> However, we would not add any major enhancements (other than m17n)
>> which have been discussed, such as splitting out a bunch of packages,
>> major compiler changes, RegExp, Squat, etc.  Those could be lined up
>> for the following release.
>
> Correct. And by closing alpha early and getting to a release fairly 
> quickly
> we'd make sure that these changes aren't delayed forever. That's why I 
> was
> looking at the 2 months range - we basically have this stuff lined up 
> to go
> (there is even a prototype alpha already which will be the Squeakland 
> plugin
> image) so let's fold it in, wrap it up, declare victory for now, and 
> put it
> the new stuff afterwards.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>