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
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
frequency of releases.
Of course such a simple assumption is bullshit. To me the list of
outstanding unfixed/unreleased issues matters most.