On 11/12/2018 2:49 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
On 11/11/2018 Peter Kovacs wrote:
I suggest that we start right away with an Parallel development of 4.1.7
Release branch.
First, we'll have to officially release and announce 4.1.6.
Then energy should really go to 4.2.0. Only if there are any outstanding
bugs or regressions we should release a 4.1.7.
I think that, unlike 4.2.0 that still requires lots of efforts, 4.1.x is
so predictable that we could even have a defined process for it, like:
- Early January 2019 (not earlier) we discuss whether it is desirable to
have a 4.1.7
- Late January 2019 we release 4.1.7 in case
- Then everybody goes back to working on 4.2.0 for some time
- Then we repeat in, say, April or even later.
Otherwise we'll always risk to fit "yet another small fix" into 4.1.x
instead of making progress on 4.2.0. The 4.1.x releases had the merit to
expand the basis of potential Release Managers (a lot of people
alternated in the Release Manager role and turn-over is a good thing),
but we can't go on wasting energy on 4.1.x.
But again: first, we'll have to officially release and announce 4.1.6.
The way I see it, we should be keeping 4.1.x for security fixes that
cannot wait until 4.2.0. As such, we may need to decide to release 4.1.7
at any time. It needs to be ready to go ASAP if a really serious
security bug shows up.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
