[rfc] six-month stable release cycles

Matthew D. Fuller fullermd at over-yonder.net
Thu Jul 30 05:57:43 BST 2009


On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 01:26:57PM -0500 I heard the voice of
John Arbash Meinel, and lo! it spake thus:
> 
> The main problem is that I don't think we'll know at 2.1beta1 that this
> is going to be the release that we are going to change the default
> format in 6 months. So we won't really know whether it is 2.1beta1 or
> 3.0beta1.

I don't see that as a problem.  It seems perfectly acceptable to be
working on 1.18dev, and decide "close" to release time that it'll be 
2.0.  The same applies just fine for 2.x becoming 3.0.


> 1) Changing the major version every 6 months is 'too fast'

Changing the major version every N months is 'too fast' and/or 'too
slow' for any N.  Change the major version when in a fuzzily-human
defined way, It's Time.  That way it actually means something.


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd at over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.



More information about the bazaar mailing list