On 08/29/2012 10:20 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:01PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Changing this into a [DISCUSS] thread to not confuse the vote.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote:
That'd be awesome, Alan.
We have a couple of sound BOM update proposals, so I will restart the vote
once I hear from you on these 2 components.
I'm also curious about the list of supported platforms (and I admit this is
an open ended policy question, rather than anything else): what do
we, as a community, want the overlap between Bigtop 0.3.0 and
Bigtop 0.3.1 supported platforms be? Or is that even an issue?
A continuation of this logic would lead to preventing new major release of
comprising components from going into a maintenance release, would it not?
Which is perfectly fine with me, btw. I want to undestand what our release
principles are:
- major release includes
new major versions of the components/new components
new versions of supported OSes/new OSes
- maintenance release includes
minor and subminor versions of the components/no new components
same set of supported OSes
If this seems like a reasonable rule of thumb - let me reshape the BOM
accordingly e.g. put Fedora 15 instead of Fedora 16.
Cos
+1
This makes sense.
But I would also be interested in hearing about it from people using or
planning or using such release for their deployments such as the people
behind the MTG distribution. I don't want to make their work more
complicated.
