From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: RFC: LTS and stable release scheme Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:10:54 +0100 Message-ID: <56164F3E.3050205@citrix.com> References: <20151006110758.GV29124@zion.uk.xensource.com> <5613EAF602000078000A8959@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <20151006140909.GF29124@zion.uk.xensource.com> <5613FC4702000078000A8A69@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <56163FFF02000078000A9303@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 1Zk96C-0001HY-9S for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:11:00 +0000 In-Reply-To: <56163FFF02000078000A9303@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 , George Dunlap Cc: Juergen Gross , LarsKurth , Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , Andrew Cooper , Doug Goldstein , xen-devel , Steven Haigh , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/10/15 09:05, Jan Beulich wrote: >> It has so far been assumed in this discussion that this would be an >> undue burden, and therefore not acceptable. > > I don't think anyone said "undue". All that was said was that the > amount of work to be put into this increases. I think it's worth saying that the amount of effort it takes to make maintenance releases -- in particular, the amount of tedious busy work for you -- is a first-order consideration in this, particularly as you don't see any value in the change. It is certainly not reasonable for everyone who is not directly affected to vote to give you more work, and it would be perfectly reasonable for you to say that if we went to a 6-month release cycle, others would have to share (or take) the burden of doing that busy-work. -George