Re: [VOTE] Release cycle scheme

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 01:47:21PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> Hi committers,
> 
> There doesn't seem to be consensus on how release cycle should be
> managed. In the survey [0] about release cycle there were following
> proposed schemes:
> 
> #1. 6 months release cycle + current stable release scheme
> #2. 6 months release cycle + LTS scheme
> #3. 6 months release cycle + extended security support
> #4. 9 months release cycle + current stable release scheme (no change
>     at all)
> 
> And the tally:
> 
> 		#1	#2	#3	#4
> George		+1	+2		-2
> Dario		+1	+2		-2
> Stefano		+1	+2		-2
> Ian C		+1	+1	+1	-1
> Olaf		+1	 0	+1	 0
> Juergen		 0	-1	 	+1
> Ian J		+2	+1	+1	-2
> Andrew		+1	+1		-1
> Jan		-1	-1	 0	+1
> 
> 
> There are comments made by individuals that couldn't be clearly
> represent in tally. The most acceptable option to stable tree
> maintainers is #1.
> 
> So I propose we use the following scheme:
> 
> - 6 months release cycle from unstable branch.
>   - 4 months development.
>   - 2 months freeze.
>   - Eat into next cycle if doesn't release on time.

+1
> - Fixed cut-off date: the Fridays of the week in which the last day of
>   March and September falls.

0

> - No more freeze exception, but heads-up mails about freeze will be
>   sent a few weeks before hand.

+1
> - Stable branch maintained for 18 months full support plus 18 months
>   security support. No mixed maintainership for stable trees.

0. 
> 
> 
> Please vote to ack or nack this proposal.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Wei.
> 
> [0]: <20151012173222.GE2421@zion.uk.xensource.com>