* Livnat Peer <[email protected]> [2012-08-21 13:23]: > On 21/08/12 17:01, Ryan Harper wrote: > > * Dave Neary <[email protected]> [2012-08-21 08:42]: > >>> I am not sure we must have new features in each release, a release of > >>> bug fixes seems also reasonable to me. Why not keep it only time-based > >>> release regardless of commitments for new features for the release. > >> > >> I like giving people good reasons to upgrade, but also good reasons > >> to install the current version - and in terms of communication, if > >> we say that 3.2 will be "3.1, with lots of bug fixes", and that it > >> will be along in 3 months, why would anyone install 3.1? We've just > >> said it's a buggy release that will soon be obsoleted anyway. > >> > >> IMHO, it's better to say "here's what 3.1 does well, here's what 3.2 > >> will be able to do that 3.1 doesn't". I'm not suggesting a > >> revolution with every release, but one thing which is identifiable > >> as "new in 3.2" doesn't seem like a lot to ask. > > > > Definitely agree with this approach. We always want something new for > > the next release. > > I agree we want something new, the question is what is the release criteria. > If I understand the above suggestion correctly If there are not enough > new features we won't release in 3 months? > I think this is a mistake because there are hundreds of bug fixes pushed > into the repository and releasing a more stable version IMO has great value.
This is what a stable release stream is for. QEMU maintains a stable release until the next version is available. We could produce a 3.1.1 release and keep that going until 3.2 comes out. And if we don't have new features in 3 months, then it's probably too short of a release cycle. The last thing we want to do is introduce *more* churn into engine deployments. If we have a stable release, this would make a longer cycle, like 6 months, more reasonable. > > For example in Networking we fixed one feature and will probably add one > small feature by November, but I know that networking in 3.1 release is > very buggy while if you take latest from upstream it is dramatically > better, regardless of the features there is a value for releasing in > November. definitely material for a stable release. -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx [email protected] _______________________________________________ Board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
