Release notes? -Chad On Oct 14, 2012 9:30 PM, "Tyler Romeo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do like the idea of a semiannual release. On a related note, I also think > we should have better plans on what is actually going to be in each > release. In other words, a site administrator should be able to know what > new features are planned for the next release before the actual release has > been made. Maybe this already happens and I just don't know where this > resource is. > *--* > *Tyler Romeo* > Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 > Major in Computer Science > www.whizkidztech.com | [email protected] > > > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Mark A. Hershberger <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > I said I would lay out my thoughts regarding MW releases this weekend, > > so here goes. > > > > First: I want to provide a regular schedule so users know what to > > expect, but something that a volunteer (me, for now) can achieve. > > > > Second: I want to provide something that Linux distributors can > > incorporate into their distributions. > > > > To fulfill the first point, I think a release twice a year -- like > > Ubuntu releases -- makes a lot of sense. This schedule also works for > > Linux distributors like Ubuntu, Fedora, and OpenSuSE > > > > Since I started out using Debian (which has now adopted a 2 year freeze > > cycle), I think it also makes sense to provide LTS support. Platonides > > and I (but mostly Platonides) have been working with the Debian > > developers to get 1.19 into Wheezy which was frozen in June. > > > > With that in mind, here is what I propose: > > > > 1.18.0 | Security updates till 1.20 > > 1.19.x | April 2012 (LTS) > > 1.20.0 | October 2012 > > 1.21.0 | April 2013 (Start in May) > > 1.22.0 | October 2013 (Start in September) > > 1.23.0 | April 2014 (LTS) > > 1.24.0 | October 2014 > > 1.25.0 | April 2015 > > 1.26.0 | October 2015 > > 1.27.0 | April 2016 (LTS) > > > > LTS releases will updates until (at least) the next LTS release. This > > means security updates, but other updates that don't require schema > > changes if people are interested in providing them. Since a couple of > > people have put the 1.20.0 milestone on a handful of bugs, I'm assuming > > now that they think those are worth merging to the 1.20 series. I'd > > like to get the fixes backported to 1.19 as well, if possible. > > > > Well, that's pretty much it what I was thinking. How does this sound to > > you guys? > > > > -- > > http://hexmode.com/ > > > > Any time you have "one overriding idea", and push your idea as a > > superior ideology, you're going to be wrong. ... The fact is, > > reality is complicated -- Linus Torvalds <http://hexm.de/mc> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
