--On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 7:01 PM +0100 Michael Ströder
<michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote:
Today releasing is already way too slow. And I'm concerned that
a
release policy with additional constraints, as suggested with
odd-/even-numbered releases, will make it even harder to get important
fixes out of the door.
I don't disagree that our current process is too slow. There's a lot of
different gating factors, such as only 3 strongly active project members
(Howard, Ondrej, myself), an badly out of date infrastructure, etc. That
last bit we're working on addressing, but then it takes time away from
getting new releases out in the meantime. Also, I really really really
would like 2.4.49 to be the end of 2.4, outside the possibility of some
critical CVEs.
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.
But my point was, I think it's a fallacy to tie software quality and
frequency of releases. I encounter way too much software today that
releases frequently, but what it releases is poorly (or not at all) QA'd,
etc. And it's a nightmare to deal with. I'd rather they slowed down and
got their software in better shape than constantly release, well, crap. ;)
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Product Architect
Symas Corporation
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP:
<
http://www.symas.com>