From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: RFC: Survey on release cycle Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:43:22 +0100 Message-ID: <1444826602.23192.184.camel@citrix.com> References: <20151012173222.GE2421@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1444825271.23192.178.camel@citrix.com> <561E672302000078000AAE59@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZmLOw-0000ag-GV for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:43:26 +0000 In-Reply-To: <561E672302000078000AAE59@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Xen-devel , Wei Liu List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 06:30 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 14.10.15 at 14:21, wrote: > > Aside: I'm a bit confused regarding whether our "stable release scheme" > > is > > defined in terms of number of concurrently supported releases or in > > terms > > of an absolute time. > > http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_Project_Maintenance_Releases defini > > tely > > says it is concurrent release based, but your proposal above suggests > > otherwise. Is the wiki wrong? > > I think the distinction wasn't relevant with the (intended) 9 month > cycle. That's true, it also wouldn't really be relevant with any given new cycle. But it does make talking about the new schemes confusing when they are described in terms of the current scheme implicitly assuming one way or the other. Ian.