On 2 June 2011 10:23, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Peter Lind <peter.e.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry for jumping into the thread, but I couldn't help noting that you seem >> confused about the distro suggestion. I think Ubuntu was the example, and >> there's nothing random at all about their release process. There are fixed >> timelines and life cycles in Ubuntu - having less branches does not in any >> way stop them from having a fixed release process and schedule. > > It is about "random" release being chosen as LTS. For many users, it > will preventing migration until a given feature is part of a LTS > release. > > Our proposal to have fixed life time and release cycles does not have > this random effect and each x.y release is equally supported for the > same duration. The amount of branches can be reduced easily and even > if we may have many at one point, it will be only about sec fixes, > that's really not a problem (a bit of automated tasked will help here > too).
Then it's an argument about wording, not content. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases : the LTS have fixed life time and come at fixed intervals - basically exactly the same you propose with "fixed life time and release cycles". Regards Peter -- <hype> WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk LinkedIn: plind BeWelcome/Couchsurfing: Fake51 Twitter: kafe15 </hype> -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
