[RFC] Releases planning

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> Max Bowsher <maxb at f2s.com> writes:

<snip/>

    >> That is, depending on the OS we're packaging for, most of our efforts
    >> should be on the *last* stable release (2.2 today) and on the upcoming
    >> release (2.3 today).
    >> 
    >> I still think we should finished the current SURs, but after that, we
    >> can alredy discuss:
    >> 
    >> - still backport or target critical fixes to 2.1 (no more 2.0 backports
    >> unless a very strong need arise) but we won't *package* it anymore,
    >> we'll do only source releases.
    >> 
    >> - still backport bugfixes targeted at debian or Ubuntu for the 2.0
    >> series, but in the packaging branch instead of our lp:bzr/2.0 or
    >> lp:bzr/2.1 branches... which would make a good dogfood exercise...

    > I submit that 2.0 is of zero interest at this point. Ubuntu lucid and
    > Debian squeeze are on 2.1.x. The only Ubuntu series on 2.0 is karmic,
    > which has a mere ~6 months of support left.

Right, but the paragraphs above are about critical bugs leading to data
loss. In this catastrophic scenarios, we may have more users interested
in 2.0 that are just silent so far and migrating to 2.2 or 2.3 in this
context may not be an option.

So what I'm proposing above is to be able to backport a fix for this
hypothetical bug in the quickest way, like all other packages following
the SRU process.

<snip/>

    > I would like to strongly suggest that we do NOT create a PPA for
    > each stable series. It would GREATLY increase the PPA maintenance
    > burden, and it's unclear to me that there are any scenarios where
    > a PPA user cannot update to the latest stable series.

I was suggesting maintaining such PPAs by copying from other ppas, sorry
for the confusion.

  Vincent