Re: RFC: Survey on release cycle

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1995 bytes --]

On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 18:32 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> Hi all
> 

> Please express your preference with -2 (strongly argue against), -1
> (not happy but not against), +1 (happy but won't argue for) and +2
> (happy and argue for).
> 

> # 6 months release cycle + current stable release scheme
> 
> The same stable release scheme applies (18 months full support + 18
> months security fixes). Encourage more people to step up to share the
> maintenance burden if necessary. Automate part of the workflow to
> maintain stable releases. Write down guideline for maintainers.
> 
+1

I especially like the 6 months cadence with fixed dates. Keeping the
current stable release scheme could be a good thing, e.g., to avoid
introducing too many changes at the same time (although, I personally
think we could well give the LTS model a try, as said below).

> # 6 months release cycle + LTS scheme
> 
> Pick LTS release every 4 releases. Announce LTS before hand. Non-LTS
> releases receive shorter support. Encourage more people to step up to
> share the maintenance burden if necessary. Automate part of the
> workflow to maintain stable releases and LTS releases. Write down
> guideline for maintainers.
> 
> The length of support hasn't been discussed thoroughly -- but to make
> LTS scheme stand out the length of support would be longer than what
> we have now (18 + 18).
> 
+2

I really like the 6 months cadence with fixed dates, and, although I
don't have much experience with them, I like the LTS idea, enough to
think that we should give it a try, at least.

> # 9 months release cycle + current stable release scheme
> 
-2

As said above, I think we should go (try) 6

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)


[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel