On 1/28/20 7:45 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Also, I really really really would like 2.4.49 to be the end of 2.4, outside the possibility of some critical CVEs.
But that's just your personal goal which is leaving systems in production unpatched until you feel you're done. IMO that's totally wrong.
If releasing a new version is so much stress then there's something fundamentally broken in the whole process.
I'd like to emphasize here that this is likely not your personal fault. It rather shows a deficiencies of the infrastructure. I've offered help in the past various times.
As for the new release numbering, I've thought about that as well, and was thinking potentially we may skip a release. I.e., go from 2.5.1 to 2.5.3 with no 2.5.2 if we just need to do a bug fix release (or vice versa if we match Gnome's strategy as Ryan brought up.
I'm not a friend of artificial constraints which likely do not fit reality later. I think there were good reasons why this scheme was abandoned for Linux kernel development. I don't know the details though.
But my point was, I think it's a fallacy to tie software quality and frequency of releases.
Of course such a simple assumption is bullshit. To me the list of outstanding unfixed/unreleased issues matters most.
Ciao, Michael.