On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:18:06 +1000 Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net> wrote:
> on holiday with a dog slow 3G vpn tonight, so I'll be brief (and wont > see any replies until I return on Sunday...) > > I have never agreed with any "release often" principle, a project that > releases often (more than a few times a year) to me says "immature > instability" compared to a project that releases once or twice a year > (barring critical bug resolutions) - IOW, release when necessary not > just because its a "cool thing to do". Take dovecot for instance, we > stayed on the stable 1.2 series for more than a year after it was EOL, > because its 2.0.x kept having fixes and releases every couple of weeks > for a while, admins dont like that, it gives them no warm feelings > towards stability. On the other hand, waiting 6 mos for a 'complete' release also implies that users are waiting for other fixes for 5 months. Reviewing CHANGES helps admins to determine if those fixes in a more frequent release cadence do address specific needs of each specific admin. > WRT slow take up of 2.4.x, I agree, the incentive (as was discussed 2 > years or so ago) was to EOL 2.0, and what needs doing now, is starting > the countdown to EOL of 2.2 - if there's no incentive to move, twenty > years of history proves most admins wont. Please keep an eye out, as Steffan has, for anywhere we are still presenting the 2.2 branch as 'stable' or implying that it is current. In practice, 2.2 is the stable release, from what users experience. The post from the modperl project relayed by Jim this past week is very welcome news, for getting 2.4 adopted by downstream packagers! At minimum, presenting 4+ packages to downstream for their evaluation and inclusion in distributions seems sensible, particularly in the early adoption phase. Without frequent fix releases, we are pushing those admins back to 2.2 for stability, whether it's warranted or not. But the thread is largely about how long an offer to RM should be considered 'valid', vs. having another prospective RM pick up the baton and run with a new release. We all get busy, and as active volunteers we tend to over-commit and under-deliver. If STATUS were devoid of 'Bill claims the baton' messages, will others step up to RM more frequently? You are asking the question, 'should we RM more frequently or avoid frequent releases?' Based on the history and early adoption of both 2.0 and 2.2, I'd suggest that frequent releases do contribute to adoption.
