> On 24 Oct 2017, at 14:42, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > I would like to start a discussion on 2.5.0 and give > some insights on my thoughts related to it. > > First and foremost: there is cool stuff in 2.5.0 > that I really, REALLY wish were in a releasable, usable > artifact. Up to now, we've been doing these as backports > to the 2.4.x tree with, imo at least, good success. > > So I think the main questions regarding 2.5.0 is a list > of items/issues that simply *cannot* be backported, due > to API/ABI concerns. And then gauge the "value" of > the items on that list. > > Another would be to look at some of the items currently > "on hold" for backporting, due to outstanding questions, > tech issues, more needed work/QA, etc... IMO, if these > backports lack "support" for 2.4.x, then I wonder how > "reliable" they are (or how tested they are) in the 2.5.o > tree. And if the answer is "we pull them out of 2.5.0" > then the question after that is what really *are* the > diffs between 2.5.0 and 2.4.x... If, however, the > answer is "tagging 2.5.0 will encourage us to address > those issues" then my question is "Why aren't we doing > that now... for 2.4.x". > > And finally: 2.4.x is now, finally, being the default > version in distros, being the go-to version that people > are using, etc... I would like us to encourage that > momentum.
As an observer, I’d like to ask what your goals are for these branches and what kinds of expectations would you like consumers of these branches to have? - Mark