> They want the latest and great release that "works", and don't care about a
> once a year LTS release no matter how stable it is.
I agree with this angle. I don't actually remember / know why an LTS
was picked... but the NetCAT angle seems practical in a way.
If users want to be on the
Thanks Neil. I think the numbered list you give here sums up the opposing
forces for the release plan rather well.
And yes, my comments are for me only; however, I know for a fact my observation
on LTS is not only for me - it's out of tens of clients/corporations where
people (myself
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 18:33, Qingtian Wang wrote:
> LTS releases have little meaning (again for me)
With big emphasis on "again for you"! ;-)
Laszlo hit the nail on the head with the comment about LTS and NetCAT
going hand in hand. For perspective, I wrote the initial draft
release schedule
I guess the point of discussion here is "how fast" we want to go when it comes
to releases. My two cents as an end user is: Daily build is too fast (for me,
because too many things might be broken); LTS releases have little meaning
(again for me) if that means any slow down of the progress.
As
Well,
1. I think we are having it right now, thanks to Neil and Eric, so far
quarterly releases seems to be just fine, especially support wise. We
still need to recommend a lot of users to upgrade from NetBeans 10 or
11.1 to 11 or 11.2 (or this time 11.3). Unless we are able to deliver
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 15:58, Qingtian Wang wrote:
> 1. Frequent and time-based releases directly from master branch is the way to
> go! If a feature doesn't fit the release, code "feature toggles" and shoot
> for the next release.
+1
> 2. Forget LTS releases - A release is a release is a
This may touch some nerves, but just a quick comment from long time and
grateful NetBeans user:
1. Frequent and time-based releases directly from master branch is the way to
go! If a feature doesn't fit the release, code "feature toggles" and shoot for
the next release.
2. Forget LTS releases
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 19:51, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
>
> It might be my bad, and a long night night work on DNS troubles, but it
> took me a while to get around the first column of the table. At the I
> could figure it out, I'd just order it by the second column as ho we see
> the dates in a
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 20:35, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> I'd like to ask: is there a plan for a "next" branch to which one could
> merge stuff for the next release while the master is closed (and which
> would be automatically merged into master when the merge window would
> open)? As master is going to
It might be my bad, and a long night night work on DNS troubles, but it
took me a while to get around the first column of the table. At the I
could figure it out, I'd just order it by the second column as ho we see
the dates in a calendar year from January to December, I might replace
version
On Fri, 17 May 2019, 19:02 Geertjan Wielenga, wrote:
> We’re a friendly community and I imagine happy to unwind decisions if
> needed.
>
Absolutely! Only a few things feel difficult to unwind, because they'll be
public, like if at 11.1 release we advertise 11.0 as the first LTS. But
time
We’re a friendly community and I imagine happy to unwind decisions if
needed.
I recommend you send a mail with LAZY CONSENSUS in the subject, outline the
release plan, specify 72 hours for objections, or otherwise you’ll then go
ahead with it. Everyone who cares should be aware of your plan at
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 17:14, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
> I'd recommend using lazy consensus rather than voting. I think it's great
> and you should go ahead.
I'm happy with that too if you prefer. Shall we vote on it? :-)
So, let's turn this into a prod to raise concerns in the next week
I'd recommend using lazy consensus rather than voting. I think it's great
and you should go ahead.
Gj
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 6:12 PM Neil C Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quick bump, just to see if there are any further thoughts on this?
>
> If there aren't objections I'd really like to run a vote
Hi,
Quick bump, just to see if there are any further thoughts on this?
If there aren't objections I'd really like to run a vote thread on
this next week - not the whole text - lots still to discuss - just key
points around release dates, LTS, version numbering and feature/master
freeze.
uot;Lite NetCAT" or NetCAT on demand with focus to
> specifc feature.
>
> Regards
> Eric
>
>
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Neil C Smith
> Envoyé : mardi 14 mai 2019 14:32
> À : dev
> Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release schedule
>
> On Tue, 14
ne-
De : Neil C Smith
Envoyé : mardi 14 mai 2019 14:32
À : dev
Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] Draft release schedule
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 13:04, Jiří Kovalský wrote:
> thanks a lot for taking the time and putting this plan together!
Thanks!
> I like the LTS idea of annual feature r
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 13:04, Jiří Kovalský wrote:
> thanks a lot for taking the time and putting this plan together!
Thanks!
> I like the LTS idea of annual feature releases in April with
> full-fledged NetCAT programs. I assume that only these LTS releases
> would have Update Centers,
Hi Neil,
thanks a lot for taking the time and putting this plan together!
I like the LTS idea of annual feature releases in April with
full-fledged NetCAT programs. I assume that only these LTS releases
would have Update Centers, wouldn't they? With this approach we could
even aim to release
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 19:11, Glenn Holmer wrote:
> NetCAT test specs should be reviewed *between releases* to have any hope
> of completing the testing in a timely manner. What is the overall plan
> for NetCAT? Does it need to change and adapt now that we are at Apache?
> Does Synergy work the
On 5/13/19 12:20 PM, Neil C Smith wrote:
> * Annual LTS releases that go through full NetCAT process
> * LTS has shorter merge window to allow time for NetCAT
NetCAT test specs should be reviewed *between releases* to have any hope
of completing the testing in a timely manner. What is the
Hi,
As part of taking on release managing the next release, I said I'd
like to try and tie up the various things people have suggested around
quarterly / time-based releases into one plan. I admit to having some
reluctance volunteering for that role while there were still
discussions around how
22 matches
Mail list logo
