On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 16:19 -0400, Michael Peters wrote:
>> We also need to think about deprecation cycles. If you deprecate a
>> feature in 1 version and then it disappears in the next then the time
>> between when my code works and when it doesn't is only 6 months. Some
>> distros provide support for several years.
>
> Which reminds me: chromatic, what was your reasoning for major releases
> being every three months, instead of four or six?
>
> I agree we don't want to go much beyond six months for our major
> releases, but with at least two major distros that aim for decent
> freshness (Ubuntu and Fedora) using six month release cycles, I'm
> curious what we gain with a shorter cycle than that.
>
> A six month release cycle makes deprecation-and-removal a one year
> affair, which isn't too bad. And we can fairly tell users who want more
> stability than that to use the "slow distro" that matches each "fast
> distro" we aim for -- Debian instead of Ubuntu, RHEL/CentOS instead of
> Fedora, for example.
>
> (Separately, I agree that one month point releases seem to work well for
> us. I don't see any reason to change that.)
>
please start a new thread as this has moved off-topic.
~jerry
