On Dec 23, 11:33am, Greg Troxel wrote:
} Martin Husemann <mar...@duskware.de> writes:
} > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 09:02:50AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
} >> Well, we are coming up on a year since netbsd-9 was branched, or at
} >> least will arrive there before this discussion resolves. So cutting
} >> -10 before we hit 100 works for me :-)
} >
} > Nitpicking (and I don't know for the discussion resolving), but netbsd-9
} > was branched on 2019-07-30 (so not even 1/2 a year yes).
} >
} > The branch for netbsd-10 can happen soon after Andrew is done (we need
} > 10.0 on the build cluster ASAP).
}
} I will admit that my comment was partly humor.
}
} Thanks for pointing out the -9 branch date. Given that we have had an
} RC, this branch is going much better than recent previous ones. I
} realize it's always difficult, but I think we (mostly you, perhaps) are
} doing better this time.
}
} I did mean to be somewhat serious in saying it was going to be time to
} start 10, just based on calendar, because I believe releases should be
} no more than 18 months apart, and I think 12 months is ideal. Thus I am
} in favor of starting a new branch 12 months after the last one was
} started.
I would like to see releases being 18 to 24 months. Releases
that come too close together are nasty for people that are running
production systems. Having releases too close together leads to
the idea of LTS (Long Term Support) versions, which have their own
problems that very few people want. What would be really nice is
to tighten up the release cycle. I realise that they have been
long for a variety of reasons, but it is something that needs to
be worked on.
} (I see the merits of points about lots of improvements in current vs 9
} and the reasonableness of branching late spring and releasing fall, even
} if that seems a bit aspirational.)
}
}-- End of excerpt from Greg Troxel
