On Fri, 31 Oct 2014, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
2014-10-31 0:38 GMT+01:00 David Lang <[email protected]>:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
+1 for a time-based release approach.
I am not sure if David and you talked about the same thing. If I
understood
David correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), he says that we release
versions (88 to avoid confusion with existing versions), e.g. 88.6.1,
88.6.2, 88.6.3, 88.6.x whenever they are ready. However, every 6 month we
would begin a new series, e.g. 88.7.1. From then on, only 88.7 is updated.
I'm actually thinking of the kernel model
every X months release 88.7, 88.8, 88.9, etc. If there are bugfixes that
need to go out between the X month releases, they become 88.7.1 88.7.2 etc.
3-6 months seems to work fairly well for individual projects. In between
people can just compile from the master. I don't think we have enough
testing participation to go the -rcX route.
If there is a major (risky) change, it would justify an 89 release, but
that would end up being something like a re-write of the queue model or
other very intrusive (and therefor risky) change, not the ongoing features,
modules, performance optimizations.
mmhh... isn't that -except for the timing- what we do with the current
-devel/-stable just in other terms? I agree that terms are important but
should we than name the master branch releases as stable and the monthly as
"old stable". Also, I have the impression that with the kernel almost
everyone uses the bi-annually releases (in our words the -stable) and not
the master.
If I am not wrong, that model would probably result in the same problem,
that is I develop new things in master branch, but everyone begins to
"test" them when it is rolled into the bi-annually releases.
The releases don't need to be bi-annual, there are advantages to shorter cycles.
People do need some stability in what's shipped, so they really aren't going to
be running things from git. So the question is, "how quickly can you release
things without annoying people too much?"
for the kernel, they are making new releases about every 2.5-3 months. Firefox
is making releases about every 6 weeks. I don't remember what Chrome's cycle is
like, but it's also rapid.
People are going to start off being afraid of new releases, but they seem to
accept them if they don't have frequent regressions. They also seem far more
afraid of changing major versions than minor versions (and even there, firefox
and chrome are getting people to accept that)
Today we have the master tree, -devel releases, -stable releases, and bugfix
releases.
I'm saying that we would have the master tree, -stable releases, and occasional
bugfix releases (the bugfixes would only fix regressions that were missed)
David Lang
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/
What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards
NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of
sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE
THAT.
