I think in general we should aim 12 months for a cycle.. It would be difficult to plan for year fractions, we basically need to initiate requirements gathering at Symposia that cannot happen more than once yearly. I tend to think that the dot releases should be calendar driven. But this cannot be taken ad absurdum, we have currently two approved features and neither of them can be released incomplete. Anyways, if for some reason either of the approved features got stuck, I'd support releasing 2.1 as soon as the not-stuck feature is completed, as both of the currently added features are big enough to warrant a new release. Another consideration is that work on n+1 can start as soon as n is technically stable not waiting for OASIS red tape to wind up for n. Also we can skip a year if we fail to collect enough feature requests or if n proves to be heavier than expected. But I wouldn't go for 16 or 18 months as the baseline.. Cheers dF Dr. David Filip ======================= OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, and Liaison Officer LRC CNGL CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734
http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452 mailto:
david.filip@ul.ie On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Kevin O'Donnell <
kevinod@microsoft.com > wrote: Hi Bryan, Thanks for sharing this update. I think the modified schedule looks fine. I wonder if there has been discussion regarding future iterations (XLIFF 2.2 etc.)? Based on the experience of XLIFF 2.1, is a 12-month update cycle unrealistic (given XLIFF 2.1 will take ~16 months)? The question really is schedule vs. feature driven – is there an optimal/regular cadence to release XLIFF updates or should feature completeness trump schedule concerns? Thanks, Kevin. From:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Schnabel, Bryan S Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:32 AM To: XLIFF Main List Subject: [xliff] XLIFF 2.1 release cadence proposal Hi all, I have adapted Kevin’s initial cadence to reflect our actual progress. Comments are welcomed. Thanks, Bryan