On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Peter Lind <peter.e.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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".
No, it is the same that what we proposed. What we proposed is that every release is actually a LTS release. What Ubuntu uses works fine for distros given that it is a distro with an insane amount of totally unrelated projects they distribute, and alternative repositories exist for almost each of them. For a programming language, it is a totally different story. for ref: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
