-------- In message <[email protected]>, Lasse Karstensen writes:
>I understand there will be no stable version, just a continous stream of >make dist from git master every 6 months. No, I don't think we should drop stable versions, but we can't make all the head-releases into stable versions, that wouldn't scale. The process I see is that we do a head-release twice a year, and once we get to know them, because people on the bleeding edge have tried them out, we pick the ones we will support as stable releases for a longer time. >Am I right to assume that distros would then just pick the one latest >available 3-6 months before they cut a release, and then live with it >for 3-5 years during the linux distro lifespan? I have no idea, that would be entirely up to them. If we do as I propose above, they would likely pick the most recent annointed stable release. >Also, since we're not doing a stable release any longer, who is >backporting the bugfixes all of these n packagers need to keep the >Varnishes in their distro safe and reliable? That's a very important question, and the answer is as disappointing as it can be: Whoever has the time and inclination. A project of our size has to economize its resources, and one way to do that is to ruthlessly tell people to upgrade. >[cut] >> Some high-profile VMODs may be able to scale that barrier too, but >> the majority wont. > >This is not correct. > >The majority of vmods in use are on the way into EPEL and Debian these >days. I understand there is some work being done on the FreeBSD ports >side as well. That would be a lovely state of affairs, I hope you're right. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
