On Wednesday 11 April 2007 03:34, Charles Plessy wrote: > I propose another idea: having a major.minor release scheme in > which we guarantee the upgrade path from major.x to major+1.0, and > from one minor release to the other. One big obstacle common to all > these directions is to find a security strategy which would not drain > all the workforce of the Project.
I hope very much that everybody involved in such a scheme will also commit to spending at least 40 hours on testing upgrade paths and helping edit the release notes at the time of a release. From that aspect alone I would currently be unwilling to support such a scheme. Coordinating and documenting a release already is a huge job, and I don't really think we can handle the extra complicating factor of having n intermediate releases of y packages (or worse major package suites) that need to be supported. My experience is that very few developers are proactive about testing upgrade paths and only respond to reported issues. Intermediate versions often contain a lot more upgrade issues than the final version a new stable release is shipped with. Cheers, FJP
pgpclYcMP9Mj9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
