On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:51:37 +0100 Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 12/03/2019 21:46, Luca Boccassi: > > On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 19:12 +0000, Kevin Traynor wrote: > > > So what to do with short term stables? Some choices could be: > > > > > > - continue with short term stables for n.02/05/08 > > > - ad-hoc support for short term stables where community have an > > > interest > > > in a particular one > > > - have a maintainer to backport fixes on a public branch, but have no > > > releases, or have unvalidated/best effort validated releases > > > - no short term stable branches/releases > > > > > > Probably there's other ideas too. Obviously most of the above would > > > need > > > resources from the community to proceed. One advantage of not having > > > short term stables is that there might be more resources available > > > for > > > maintenance/validation of master and LTS DPDK releases. > [...] > > > > My 2c is that, unless someone steps up not only for the maintainer role > > but also for the validation effort, we should cancel the short term > > releases. > > Yes it looks reasonnable. > So we must question the community at each major release > to know if it will maintained, how long, or not. > If there are volunteers, we must clearly state in the stable release notes > which areas are validated. The validation is the major hurdle.
