El mié, 07-07-2010 a las 20:30 +0200, Alvaro Lopez Ortega escribió: > [...] > > I remember this topic was discarded in the summit, but in cases like > > this (the SSL problem it's pretty critic), I think that current release > > scheme has some limitations. > > I does, indeed. I do not like the idea of maintaing two branches though. It'd > have quite an impact in the development speed, affecting both bug fixing and > new features development. > > Instead, I'd go for a tagging mechanism where releases are marked as 'stable' > or 'development'. A stable version would ship bug fixes and documentation > improvements, while development versions would have added new features. Every > single version would come from trunk, independently or whether it is a > 'stable' or 'development' release.
That's very interesting! In the ideal scenario we have a version that won't introduce new problems, but fix any important problem detected after the release, until a new release becomes "stable". Your idea it's more like a "rolling release" than maintaining two releases, to avoid the extra man-power to do those backports over the time. But I think we should make the extra effort, that won't be that frequent, to fix the important bugs* while the development releases reach a "stable" point again. It's not like having two branches, and it would make easier for the users to have Cherokee in production, enjoying the bleeding edge stuff and at the same time without having to worry in each upgrade. Cheers, Juanjo * important bug: security and reliability only -- jjm's home: http://www.usebox.net/jjm/ blackshell: http://blackshell.usebox.net/ ramble on: http://rambleon.usebox.net/ _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
