+1 LTS, but FWIW I also think Daan has a point here and it should be taken into consideration.
-- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, 19 January, 2016 07:45:57 > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] LTS Release Cycle > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:20 AM, John Burwell <john.burw...@shapeblue.com> > wrote: > >> In terms of the merge strategy, nothing about the current process would >> change. Defects would be fixed on the branch where they occurred and then >> forward ported to master. For each maintained LTS branch less than 14 >> months old, only blocker and critical defects that fall within the LTS’ >> branch scope would be pulled back from master. Therefore, the number of >> defects backported should be relatively small. Any defects found and fixed >> in an LTS branch would be forward ported to master. I will clarify the >> proposal to establish this merge pattern to ensure that LTS does not >> violate or impede the flow of defect fixes on master and maintained monthly >> releases. >> > > John, Any backporting should be avoided. Any fix review should include the > contemplation of the question, 'Is this on the right branch?'. That is my > point. I am not against LTS. I want fixes to be traceable by their commit > id over all branches. Backporting is killing in that respect. > > I am not the release manager so rest assured I will not make an issue of > this any more. I won't hold my peace either, though. > > > -- > Daan
