On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 15:05:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 12/16/12 6:15 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 12/15/2012 09:39 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Can we drop the LTS name ? It reminds me of ubuntu, and I
clearly hope
that
people promoting that idea don't plan to reproduce ubuntu's
scheme :
- it is not suitable for a programming language (as stated 3
time now,
so just
read before why I won't repeat it).
- ubuntu is notoriously unstable.
Call them "stable release cycles" if you like, which is what
they are
intended to be.
Just one tidbit of information: I talked to Walter and we want
to build into the process the ability to modify any particular
release. (One possibility is to do so as part of paid support
for large corporate users.) That means there needs to be one
branch per release.
Andrei
This sounds to me like a bad idea. And indeed, I haven't heard of
any other project doing this.
If you do so, you'll quickly stop maintaining the older branches
(especially when the corporate users pay for their specific
developments), forcing users to hop to newer branches, with the
possibility of breaking changes, so it's no different than
today's situation.
If they really want specific developments, let them have their
own branch and not interfere with a community driven process. In
fact, I may sound harsh and a bit extreme, but I think paying
users should have a priority to bugfixes and that's it, not on
the development of the language itself, as they will attempt to
rush half baked features.
I do think a bleeding edge branch and one or two stable branches
(let's say one per year for the last two years) is good enough.
And one branch for the paying user, which will merge to the
bleeding edge if its specific developments prove worthwhile. But
as soon as there are more than one paying user, it will
instantaneously become impractical, so that really, they should
just be limited to bugfixes.
BTW, will they share with the community their own developments ?
