On Tue, July 3, 2018 11:48, Howard Chu wrote:
Ryan Tandy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 09:52:37AM -0400, David Magda wrote:
Given that most users of OpenLDAP "consume" it via their distribution-of-choice's package, this would (IMHO) increase the chances of more recent versions of OpenLDAP being used (especially in Debian and Ubuntu, but also Fedora). Recent Debian releases occur in Q2, and Ubuntu does April/October (LTSes are April), while Fedora (roughly) does May/November.
In the case of Debian and Ubuntu at least, what's relevant is the
freeze date,
not the actual release. For Debian 9 (Stretch) that was 2017-02-05, for
Debian
10 (Buster) it is planned for 2019-03-12. For Ubuntu the relevant date
is the
"Debian Import Freeze" on their release calendar.
Sounds like we'd be looking at a release date in January then. Maybe a bit awkward, first thing after the new year holiday.
It does not /have/ to be related to downstream distros. I mentioned the distros in my original message as a suggestion, and not as a hard requirement.
If OpenLDAP has a biannual cycle, then the "out-of-date" release would only be at most six months old. Compare that between 2.4.46 to 2.4.45 (>9 months) to 2.4.44 (16 months).
Ubuntu's Debian Import Freeze is usually the first week of March and September, so February/September would be okay for that. Debian package maintainers can ask for uploads to be "unblocked" on a case-by-case basis. But a six-month-old point-release is certainly better than have year-old code in the distros (which then can live on for >2 years.)
Taking out external factors from consideration, are there any internal OpenLDAP concerns about doing a calendar-based maintenance release cycle? (Major version and security releases would not be included in this.)
-- David Magda