Re: RFC: change to 6 months release cycle

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 13:51 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 01:44 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 12:23 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > we can pick a stable tree every X releases etc etc.
> > 
> > I think switching to an LTS style model, i.e. only supporting 1/N for
> > longer than it takes to release the next major version might be
> > interesting
> > to consider. I'm thinking e.g. of N=4 with a 6 month cycle.
> > 
> > I think some of our downstreams (i.e. distros) would like this, since
> > it
> > gives them releases which are supported for a length of time more like
> > their own release cycles.
> 
> And again there will be a rush to get a feature in at the end of each
> Nth cycle, as it will end up in the long-term stable version...

I actually think there is plenty of stuff which people just want in _some_
release.

> > On a completely different tack, one way of looking at this is that
> > there
> > are 2 releases in a given 18 month period with 9 month cycle vs 4 in
> > the 6
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 4 * 6 = 24, not 18!

Oops yes. 3*6=18 just makes my point more valid though I think.

Ian.