> Op 13 juli 2016 om 18:25 schreef John Burwell <john.burw...@shapeblue.com>: > > > All, > > Since LTS introduces a new release stream, I would like to propose that we > cut the first LTS quickly to verify that various aspects of the release cycle > and version number dependent components will work properly with the new > release naming scheme. It will also allow us to flesh out distribution > issues such as download locations (e.g. for system VMs) and publishing LTS > documentation alongside regular releases. My thinking is that we would push > an RC for this release within a week of the 4.9.0.0 release. If this > additional release is acceptable, I will update the release calendar to > reflect the following changes: > > * LTS 4.9.0.0_1.0 > * Development/Testing: 1 week after 4.9.0.0 release > * RC Voting: 2 weeks after 4.9.0.0 release > * LTS 4.9.0.0_2.0 > * Development/Testing: From 3 to 9 weeks of the 4.9.0.0 release > * RC Voting: 10th week after the 4.9.0 release >
I am fine with 4.9.0 as a LTS. But why a new vote for 4.9.0.0 as a LTS? Isn't that a bit redundant? When we say 4.9.0 is good, what doesn't make it good for a LTS? Wido > I apologize for the relative dates — we are still waiting for 4.9.0.0 to > complete voting. > > Thanks, > -John > john.burw...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > >
