Follow Up from "Let's Discuss Interim Releases"

[Phillip Susi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/09/2013 03:09 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> 2)  Rather than upload to raring, then freeze, then release
>> raring as stable, change the model slightly so we have uploads
>> going to the "unstable" release.  Then say, 3 months prior to the
>> deadline for the new stable release, we open a new archive for
>> that release, and copy the unstable release to it.  Then bugs
>> would be fixed in the stable release, while new development can
>> continue concurrently in unstable.
> 
> Your option two seems somewhat similar to the situation we end up
> with now when just after release, we don't have a development
> series and SRUs are uploaded to the current release and later
> forward copied to the development version when it's ready.  This
> can be a pretty labor intensive, error prone process.

No.  Under that option there would never be a time where we don't have
a development release.  It would always exist and, I propose, be named
simply "unstable".  Bugs found during the freeze would be first fixed
in unstable, and the fix backported to stable, just as we do now with
SRUs, though with more relaxed requirements since it wouldn't be a
stable release yet.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRO+JdAAoJEJrBOlT6nu75a2gH/0ROFH4nfzlf/0HGYoU+Pcis
90igBLdBKahOwKrdHufXlJhnv+Wj9rUC1zQzHjTnAO3sfgl8npXJa7ktVwikg6+z
t+2odjghSydm0g7JKScUmRbtjsd5Iwi7lNqh0W9iRG01ljxPyffAdMMtLgYR+Z5i
LdlE/4JcJMigDuq6LLfH1uPhQcfyIi5XszezoC0ffp8hup+eaEL2LHybxKXIMP+h
jT0O9H7HpcZEaDFBfWAlH1+/w7Wyn2sKjXxaWmJaBkNATSCqbOZ/OXyTJOevYf8f
AYf3g15bBD9cyXwPzsdDuLM5Vn7WmKbBiotZcInAcNyC2JytQZhVhRRUVoGYxDI=
=j7Ak
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----