Andrey Repin:
[ Charset windows-1250 converted... ]
> Greetings, Wietse Venema!
>
> > I do not care much what other projects do.
>
> Did I say you do? I just outlined two most common approaches, with examples.
Well, I don't like bringing up PHP in a discussion about Postfix :-(
> > Postfix has
Greetings, Wietse Venema!
> I do not care much what other projects do.
Did I say you do? I just outlined two most common approaches, with examples.
> Postfix has a good record for quality, stability and compatibility, and it
> supports four stable releases, each release receiving updates for fou
On January 31, 2019 11:10:50 AM UTC, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
while debian and ubuntu LTS have 2-year cycle and 5-year LTS support, yes,
that can get near 8 years behind.
On 31.01.19 11:22, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Debian has no strict release cycles, and Debian's LTS is based on several
fa
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 21:14:07 -0500, Richard Damon stated:
FreeBSD users already have a choice of either the latest postfix
version, Postfix 3.3 stable release or the latest beta
version,Postfix 3.4 experimental release. I don't know if
there is a good reason to modify the release dates, at least
On January 31, 2019 11:10:50 AM UTC, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>while debian and ubuntu LTS have 2-year cycle and 5-year LTS support, yes,
>that can get near 8 years behind.
Debian has no strict release cycles, and Debian's LTS is based on several
factors including $$, time, and personnel.
On 30.01.19 16:38, Wietse Venema wrote:
One problem with LTS releases is that down-stream distros can end
up running very old code (for example with 4-year LTS up-stream,
a down-stream distro with 4-year LTS can end up running 8-year old
code, which is really a pain to support on a mailing list l
On 1/30/19 4:45 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2019, at 4:39 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>>
>> Why wait for a group of features before a release? Why not release per
>> feature?
> Because people want a reasonable period of support for released code.
> And we can only support a small h
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 4:39 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>
> Why wait for a group of features before a release? Why not release per
> feature?
Because people want a reasonable period of support for released code.
And we can only support a small handful of releases. So increasing the
release ca
* Wietse Venema :
> I do not care much what other projects do. Postfix has a good record
> for quality, stability and compatibility, and it supports four
> stable releases, each release receiving updates for four years.
>
> I do observe that 1) several major features were ready about 6
> months af
One problem with LTS releases is that down-stream distros can end
up running very old code (for example with 4-year LTS up-stream,
a down-stream distro with 4-year LTS can end up running 8-year old
code, which is really a pain to support on a mailing list like this
one). SMTP may be an old protocol
I do not care much what other projects do. Postfix has a good record
for quality, stability and compatibility, and it supports four
stable releases, each release receiving updates for four years.
I do observe that 1) several major features were ready about 6
months after the 3.3 stable release tha
Mainly, I don't want to race to get code ready for the once-per-year
release, and I don't want to wait for an entire year if the code
is not ready before the deadline.
Release any time a sufficiently important feature is ready and do not
let any schedule pressure force you to compromise on qual
Greetings, Wietse Venema!
> I'm reconsidering the once-per-year schedule for stable releases.
> Basically, a Postfix stable release freezes development at a point
> in time, forever. Primarily, this is good for stability.
> * In this day and age it seems archaic to have to wait for up to a
> ye
Daniel Miller:
> On 1/29/2019 7:40 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > I'm reconsidering the once-per-year schedule for stable releases.
> > Basically, a Postfix stable release freezes development at a point
> > in time, forever. Primarily, this is good for stability.
> >
> Are the reasons you imposed a o
On 1/29/2019 7:40 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
I'm reconsidering the once-per-year schedule for stable releases.
Basically, a Postfix stable release freezes development at a point
in time, forever. Primarily, this is good for stability.
Are the reasons you imposed a once-per-year release previously
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 10:40:37 AM Wietse Venema wrote:
> I'm reconsidering the once-per-year schedule for stable releases.
> Basically, a Postfix stable release freezes development at a point
> in time, forever. Primarily, this is good for stability.
>
> * In this day and age it seems archa
* Wietse Venema:
> There is a downside to less than a year between stable releases:
> the support time window will become less than four years.
Personally, I consider Postfix to be among the software packages which
are easiest to update (and I build from the sources, since early 2.5.x)
because of
On 29.01.19 16:40, Wietse Venema wrote:
> A higher release frequency would help to get good code out the door
> without having to race against a once-per-year schedule. But, as
> mentioned, it also reduces the length of time that a given release
> will be supported.
IMO not much of a problem, the
I'm reconsidering the once-per-year schedule for stable releases.
Basically, a Postfix stable release freezes development at a point
in time, forever. Primarily, this is good for stability.
* In this day and age it seems archaic to have to wait for up to a
year before useful code can be deployed
19 matches
Mail list logo
