From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: RFC: change to 6 months release cycle Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:55:00 +0100 Message-ID: <1444046100.11707.196.camel@citrix.com> References: <20151002174356.GA3577@zion.uk.xensource.com> <5612755302000078000A8114@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <20151005112357.GC29124@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1444045497.11707.195.camel@citrix.com> <5612642A.30407@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Zj4MF-0005uj-3G for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:55:07 +0000 In-Reply-To: <5612642A.30407@suse.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: Juergen Gross , Wei Liu , Jan Beulich Cc: Lars Kurth , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 13:51 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > 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... I actually think there is plenty of stuff which people just want in _some_ release. > > 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! Oops yes. 3*6=18 just makes my point more valid though I think. Ian.