Re: RFC: change to 6 months release cycle

[Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>]

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...

> 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!


Juergen