2010/8/10 Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Johannes Schlüter wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:20 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > > Is LTS really something we need to provide? Seems to me like this is > > > something the linux vendors take care of for the most part. Of course > > > this leaves windows, OSX (and maybe some others). > > > > Well, I don't see it as loooooooooooooooooooooooooong term support, but > > Using LTS as a term confused me on that one :P > > > rather as way to enable quick feature cycles, so that feature releases > > can move faster than anybody can upgrade to them (ok, that's a bit too > > fast the, but hope you get the point), while new features can get in > > production sooner, where wanted. > > > > We could also use the names "feature preview release" and "stable > > release"(=lts) ... which would bring us close to MySQL's model and their > > confusing version numbering (MySQL 5.1 is the stable there, then MySQL > > 5.4 was announced as preview, now MySQL 5.5 is the current preview > > release, neither 5.4 nor 5.5 are "stable", "GA", though) > > I still don't think this is a good idea though. That would me we have > (as example) 5.2 in LTS, 5.6 as stable and 5.7 in trunk? How much do you > (at that point) like supporting a 4/5 year old version? Do you hvae that > much spare time? > > I think our current way work pretty well. There is 5.2 which is > security-fix supported, 5.3 that is supported and trunk/5.4 that's on > the way to alpha. > > Derick > > >From the ubuntu wiki:
"A new LTS version is usually released every 2 years. With the Long Term Support (LTS) version you get 3 years support on Ubuntu Desktop, and 5 years on Ubuntu Server. There is no extra fee for the LTS version; we make our very best work available to everyone on the same free terms. Upgrades to new versions of Ubuntu are and always will be free of charge." So with this release policy comes the following terms: - the releases coming in a timely manner. - normal release gets support until the next release comes out. - an LTS release gets support until a pre-defined time interval(and we promise we will release the next LTS until that time). - you have an upgrade-path from a version to the next one. - you have an upgrade-path from an lts version to the next lts. we could change the interval-s to suit our needs, but with this policy, the early-adopters could use and test the new features earlier, but the lazy devs are allowed to upgrade only with the EOL of the LTS. with the new approach we could release a new major version much faster and smaller changeset. I would suggest the 5.3 branch for the first LTS what are your thoughts about the optimal timeframe for a normal/LTS php release? I would prefer 6-12 months for a release, and 2-3 years for an LTS (this is why we shouldn't start the LTS with the already old 5.2 branch ) Tyrael
