On Jan 7, 2016, at 5:27 PM, Remi Bergsma <rberg...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> > On 07/01/16 17:22, "Rene Moser" <m...@renemoser.net> wrote: >> No, it is not the pace. You can do as many major as often as you want >> but if one uses this major, how long will it get minors? We have no clue. >> >> I understand your point completely while my argument is that I have to >> plan releases year by year. >> >> Under this condition I'd take the LTS of the releases, the most stable >> one even its 2 years old, (I have to maintain it for a year), not the >> latest one, for sure not a .0 release. >> >> With that mindset, there is no version for me right now. > > I see your point. To me this is not a sustainable model, but if you want to > keep doing this the only option I see is finding a RM for your specific > release. > > And as a matter of fact, 4.7.0 == 4.6.2 so that .0 might be the best .0 > release we ever had. Don’t underestimate the change that was made. Releases > now build on top of each other, while that was never the case. > > Anyway, I cannot and don’t want to convince you. We want something different > and that is fine. What I do want to know is what others want. Because if the > majority wants what you are asking for, we should do that. > Remi, I think Rene might have a point, that while things are clear for you, the fact that 4.7.0 == 4.6.2 may be lost on other folks that are used to the old ways. Maybe we need a picture or something... > Regards, > Remi
