> On Jan 25, 2018, at 5:42 PM, Glen Ditchfield wrote:
>
> Regarding EOL management, I think you will soon have three supported
> "product lines": the upcoming 3.0, a 2.6.x series (2.6.19, 2.6.20,
> ...), and a 2.4.x series. (The level of support might be something
> low like "security fixes o
len Ditchfield
Date: 26/1/18 12:43 (GMT+10:00)
To: gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
Subject: Re: On development/release processes and version numbers
Regarding EOL management, I think you will soon have three supported
"product lines": the upcoming 3.0, a 2.6.x series (2.6.19, 2.6.20,
...), and a
Regarding EOL management, I think you will soon have three supported
"product lines": the upcoming 3.0, a 2.6.x series (2.6.19, 2.6.20,
...), and a 2.4.x series. (The level of support might be something
low like "security fixes only".) 3.1 will likely come out before 2.6.x
reaches end-of-life.
For clarification, Ubuntu supports their LTS for 5 years, (both desktop and
server) but they release one every 2 years. Debian adopted a similar approach,
but the two are a year out of sync.
As most know, Ubuntu uses a date based version numbering scheme with point
releases for bug fixes. Debia
Looks like a start of an interesting discussion.
I'll chip in just a few drops at this time and won't repeat myself in terms
of personal preferences for the version numbers because there are other
concerns to take into consideration there, as well.
The release management need not necessarily be ti
