+1, this would line up nicely with having a major rev once a year with 2 or 3 minor revisions in between. Then maybe once a month someone rolls up any applicable bugfixes and we do a point release? Do we want to have some procedure around that, like a mini vote? On Oct 31, 2012 6:26 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > So I think we have consensus around a few things already - lets > > highlight those: > > > > * Time based releases > > * Versioning scheme: > > X.Y.Z > > > > - X : increases when there is a "major" change in architecture or some > > major new feature > > - Y : increases with every release every 6 month (reset when X increases) > > - Z : increases when there are "must fix bugs" or annoying bugs that > > get fixed in a release branch (reset when Y increases) > > > > > > ===== What we don't yet have consensus on ===== > > > > * What the time period is on releases > > Digging this out of the past, IIRC, we never got around to resolving > the time period for releases. We should come to a conclusion on this > topic! I'd like to propose that we follow a 4 month release cycle for > non-bug fix releases. > > Generally, it would mean a schedule that would look something like > this (M=Month and W=Week): > M1 through M2 - Features are being developed in branches, and merged > into master over the course of these two months > M2 W4 - Feature freeze (and release branch is cut). > M3 W1 through M4 W1 - Doc Updates and Testing > M4 W1 - Docs Freeze > M4 W2 - Final regression testing / bug fixes / doc fixes > M4 W3 - First RC cut and opened for voting... Wash rince repeat until > an RC is voted to be released > > This proposal might lean a bit heavily towards documentation and > testing, but my opinion is that features are going to be developed > outside of this release cycle. What matters, is when they land in > master, and when they are scheduled to be released. IMO, this type of > schedule provides us with the ability to have predictable periods of > time for stabilization and documentation. > > If the actual time period of the release is something other than 4 > months, then I would argue for a similar schedule in the ramp up to > the first RC. > > If we can reach a consensus on this, I'll be happy to draft up a > schedule with specific dates for our 4.1.0 release. > > Thoughts, comments, flames? > > -chip > > > * What the version number for the first Apache release should be (to > > be fair we haven't really discussed this.) > > > > So lets start with the easy one, the version number - should we target > > 3.1.0 or 4.0.0 or something else entirely? I could be swayed either > > way. > > > > On the release time period - as a packager for 20-30 packages in > > Fedora I am certainly sympathetic to release cycles, and realize that > > virtually all of the community distros (save Debian which is on a two > > year release cycle) are on a 6 month cycle. That said I don't know > > that we can necessarily be married to what the distros are doing. I > > also look at projects like subversion which are tossing out releases > > approximately every 60 days - and I don't see any distro that doesn't > > carry subversion (though admittedly very different projects in > > virtually every respect) I think every 3-4 months makes sense to me, > > but again that's just me - gives us a slightly faster iteration but > > hopefully not removing towards an unmanageable release cycle speed. > > > > Another question is - how long do we support any given release > > line......e.g. if I embark on 5.2.0 (completely made up version > > number, but assuming the above version scheme) how long will I be > > guaranteed bugfixes for 5.2.x. Perhaps it's too soon to even ask that > > question - we haven't even pushed a single release out, but something > > to think about. > > > > Thoughts, comments, flames? > > > > --David > > >
