Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] 6 month release cycle

>  Ed Merks<ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
> Another question we must ask is what's best for the consumers/adopters?  
> ...  On the other hand, I also imagine that a great many 
> commercial adopters see quality and stability as their primary criteria 
> for adoption and hence see more value in SR1 and SR2 releases of a 
> stable base that's focused primarily on quality improvements compared to 
> all the new feature development, which is almost inevitably associated 
> with lower quality.

I strongly second this point: for people around me SR2 is the most valuable
release.  That's the release they feel to be stable enough for production.
The quality of any SR2 is only possible by fixing bugs against R and SR1 
and introducing *No-New-Bugs*, to the degree humanly possible.
Any admitting new features into SR1/2 compromises this quality.
If we stop building real SR1/2 we throw away an essential asset.

I'd expect that any projects that don't use a maintenance branch along the 
R-SR1-SR2 stream, should simply contribute their R content to the SR1/2

If on top of that, we have the energy to create releases more frequently: fine,
but for a stabilized SR2 I believe the 1-year cycle is actually good.

my 2c,

Back to the top