On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.de> wrote: > On 2009-11-05T14:45:36, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > >> Lastly, I would really like to defer this for 1.2 >> I know I've bent the rules a bit for 1.0 in the past, but its really >> late in the game now. > > Personally, I think the Linux kernel model works really well. ie, no > "major releases" any more, but bugfixes and features alike get merged > over time and constantly.
Thats a great model if you've got hoards of developers and testers. Of which we have neither. At this point in time, I can't see us going back to the way heartbeat releases were done. If there was a single thing that I'd credit Pacemaker's current reliability to, it would be our release strategy. > > With increasing coverage of the regression tests, the existing > functionality is protected; which is really the important bit. This > encourages a smooth forward transition. One simply can't test everything. > There's a point in having a devel tree (similar to linux-next) before > merging back major features into the trunk, but I don't really subscribe > to the major version flow. That just means that there's a lot of testing > that needs to happen at once, which means more things slip through than > with incremental testing. In my experience, major updates make them a > royal PITA for users. Noted. But for now, I don't think we'll go in that direction. _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
