I also think we should encourage the community to always use and test out the latest version.
Thanks, Eduard On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Caleb James DeLisle < [email protected]> wrote: > > > On 05/22/2012 04:39 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > > > > On May 21, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > > > >> Hi devs, > >> > >> Given that each development cycle usually starts with bigger changes > and ends with a couple of stabilization releases, IMHO it makes sense to > keep the last branch of a cycle maintained for a while longer. > >> > >> Our current strategy is to only support two branches at a time, the one > being developed, and the one before it. This means that as soon as [N].0 is > released, [N-1].5.x is dropped. However, the [N-1].5.x branch is much more > stable and polished than the fresh new start of the cycle, so more people > would be interested in using that stable version, especially in enterprise > situations. Thus, I propose to amend our support rule to keep the > end-of-cycle branch active for, let's say, 6 months. Still, this means only > that we backport major or critical issues, which would improve the > stability of that branch, without any new features. > > > > I don't like it because the point of the 2 branches only was twofold: > > > > 1) Force users to move to the newer version and thus help us test it. > Users get XWiki for free and it's good that they contribute something back. > Testing is contributing back. Your proposal basically means that you're > telling users: "Don't use the new N.0 release because it's not ultra stable > yet, instead, stay on N-1.5.x and wait 6 months. With this strategy we'll > have less people testing N.x and 6 months down the road N+1.x will be less > tested. > > > > 2) It's more work. We already have a hard time maintaining N.x. For > example right now we have an important bug that was fixed in 4.0.1 and > we're not even releasing 4.0.1 when we should. Also we're fixing bugs on > 4.1.x that we're not backporting to 4.0. > > > > Also note that this means less work done on the N.x and N+1.x and our > dev team is already very small (about 5-6 active committers)… > > > > I think I'd prefer a slightly different strategy: > > * As a team we keep the same rule as now, i.e. only 2 branches (dev > branch + stable) > > * If a given committer wants to maintain another branch himself a bit > more, he can do it but he should state it on a case by case basis so that > others don't delete it and then it's up to him to backport stuff he wants > to the branch and close it when it's no longer needed. > > I agree, I'm not opposed to old versions being supported but I don't think > it's the community's job. > I wouldn't expect Linus Torvolds to support 2.4.x, but RedHat can. > > Caleb > > > > > WDYT? > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
