Le 24/04/2018 à 19:58, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
One thing you mention above is "wait for a new minor release". I can
definitely see that being an issue for our current maj.minor layout
given that minor bumps are measured in years. In this proposal, unless
there's a pressing need to send out a patch release right now, the
next version WOULD be that minor bump. Put into practice, I would see
major bumps being measured in years, minor bumps in quarters and patch
bumps in weeks/months.
I think the same.
But we should be clear on how long we maintain each version and the
effort needed for that.
How long does we backport bug fixes?
How long does we fix security issues?
Should we also need some kind of LTS version? If yes, how to choose
them? M.0.0 version? In an unpredictable way as Linux does, "when it's
time for it"? On a timely basis as Ubuntu does?
2.2 vs 2.4 was already not that active in the last months/years of 2.2,
as already discussed in the list.
I'm a bit reluctant to backport things in, let say, 4 minors branches
because we maintain them for 1 year (4 quarters) + 1 or maybe even 2 LTS
branches!
To dare to go this way, either me need much more man power (and I'm
please to see many names active on the list these days), or we should
avoid writing bugs, so we don't have to maintain fix for them :)
CJ
