intrigeri: > Here's my proposal (see below for the detailed reasoning): > > * 2018-01-23: Release 3.5 (bugfix release) — anonym is the RM > > * 2018-03-13: Release 3.6 (major release) — bertagaz is the RM > > * 2018-05-08: Release 3.7 (bugfix release) — bertagaz is the RM > > * 2018-07-03: Release 3.8 (bugfix release) — intrigeri is the RM > > * 2018-08-28: Release 3.9 (major release) — anonym is the RM > → includes ESR60 + VeraCrypt support + Additional Software Packages > > * 2018-10-23: Release 3.10 (bugfix release) — anonym is the RM > > * 2018-11-27: Release 3.11 (major release) — anonym is the RM > → the most likely first Tails release based on Debian testing, > *if* we decide to try it out.
Works for me I think. Maybe I'll be able to combine the user testing for both Additional Software and VeraCrypt in a single sprint :) > Detailed reasoning > ================== > > [...] > > And I've (finally…) changed my mind recently > wrt. the cost/benefit of sticking to the odd=bugfix/even=major > convention, after I heard a Tails contributor explaining in a talk > that "we'll skip 3.4 because the project lacks resources". Uhh, interesting fact :) > I think > I was the only one explicitly pushing for this scheme so I bet > (almost?) everyone will be happy to switch to meaningless — but less > confusing — incrementing version numbers, starting with Tails 3.5. I also like the odd=bugfix/even=major scheme, in theory but in practice the Firefox schedule leads to confusing numbering every year or so. I have no strong opinion but it's a good idea to try version numbers that are meaningless to us and see how it works for us this year. _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.