Technical Release Manager for Samba
jra at samba.org
Tue May 5 13:36:46 MDT 2015
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 08:41:10PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 08:13:18PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > On 2015-05-05 at 16:41 +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> > > > In thinking about 4 month release cycles, I've been concerned that our
> > > > current 'nobody is in charge'/consensus mode of operation may make practical
> > > > operation difficult.
> > >
> > > As written before I think 4 month cycles are too short for us.
> > > 6 would be ok for me.
> > Is this a gut feeling or is there reasoning behind this?
> > For me, this really depends on how much we would be able to
> > slim down the release and maintenance work:
> > I do certainly see the appeal for having very short release
> > cycles. By having releases very frequently (<= 4 months), each
> > single one becomes much less important, and more easy to do.
> We need to revisit our support statement then. With 4 months, a single
> release is only supported for a year. This might be pretty short for some.
Six months is clearly too short. My preference - aim for 6 months,
and don't be too upset if it ends up at 9.
We have to step back and ask who the releases are for ?
OEMs usually have their own release tree - they use our
release numbers as a guide, but are willing and able to
use git trees and back-port specific patches for their
Linux distros IMHO are the biggest consumers of our release
streams, so I'd like to hear what would work best for
More information about the samba-technical