Why are you rebasing the harley code into 3.2? It was my understanding that PTFS knew it was too late for the code in harley to be included in 3.2, but that it could be integrated properly into 3.4. That is why it was released in its entirety for now rather than as patches.
Galen rebases code into 3.2, enhancements or bug fixes of interest for the upcoming 3.2 version. And Chris rebases code into futur 3.4: that's rather new functionalities that can't be integrated into 3.2.
Also, I believe that code will be released more frequently from PTFS than every 6 months. It is just that any given piece of code is going to be tested by the PTFS customer base first. However, I believe their release cycle will be more frequent than 6 months (though I don't remember the frequency).
How do other vendors develop their code? What is harely if it is not a branch? Is it not considered a branch because it has not been rebased since October? (These are sincere questions on my part.)
What's required by release managers is not a unique branch per vendor, based on a 9 month old Koha code, but a branch per feature/bug fix. And each feature branch, as already explained by Chris and others several times, must be rebased regularly into current version of Koha. The 'rebasing' process has to be done by the feature developer. Rebasing means that you have to manage conflicts, merge portions of code, and so one. This task could be time consuming and mustn't be supported by release managers but by feature developer who has been paid to do his development and to contribute it back into Koha. -- Frédéric