Re: New release policy for OpenLDAP

--On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 7:01 PM +0100 Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com&gt; wrote: 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a lot of different gating factors, such as only 3 strongly active project members (Howard, Ondrej, myself), an badly out of date infrastructure, etc.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>