On Mon, Nov 5, 2012, at 03:40 PM, David Nalley wrote: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > > In another thread, I think we were discussing monthly releases for minor > > releases. IMHO, that's a good schedule and we should try for a monthly > > release rather than trying to decide each one independently. (e.g. > > "well, do we have enough bugfixes for a point release now? How about > > now?" Etc.) > > I think this is far more subjective. You don't issue a bugfix release > if there are no bugs to fix (unlikely that there will be no bugs, but > there might be no bugs that are worth fixing, or that people have > fixed) or alternatively we may discover a bug awful enough to demand a > faster release and only releasing on 'patch Tuesday' isn't in > everyone's best interest.
So - of course I'm not suggesting that we hold off on a patch for an awful bug or security issue. What I think we should consider is (failing extreme cases that demand an immediate bugfix or a complete lack of relevant bugfixes) committing to monthly* releases with bugfixes against the last major release. That would make the bugfix releases more predictable and help folks who are deploying CloudStack with their planning. * Or at least regularly scheduled releases. It could be more or less than one month, but it should be predictable. -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
