On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Patrick Shanahan
* Bryen M Yunashko
[06-12-12 14:36]: On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 11:52 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Greetings, Stephan This also raises the question of support for N-2. With 18 months support, 11.4 EOL's in September. By default, that means N-2 gets supported for 2 months after the most current release is released.
This also raises the question of support for N-2. With 18 months support, 11.4 EOL's in September. By default, that means N-2 gets supported for 2 months after the most current version is released.
N+2 = (13.1) Slated for November 2013 N+1 = (12.3) Slated for March 2013 (now possibly skipped) N = (12.2) Slated for July 2012 (now delayed) N-1 = (12.1) Supported until May 2013 N-2 = (11.4) Supported until September 2012
Perhaps we should remove the "18-month Rule" and re-define it as "N-2 gets support always until 2 months after most current version is released"?
I believe that is the most logical scenario.
If we modified this then, assuming 12.2 releases in September:
N+2 = 13.2 Slated for release July 2014 (release and support cycles back to normal) N+1 = 13.1 Slated for release November 2013 N = 12.2 Slated for release September 2012-Supported until September 2014 N-1 = 12.1 Supported until January 2014 (because 12.3 is dropped) N-2 = 11.4 Supported until November 2012 (extended because of 12.2 delay)
I'm not proposing a discussion about the overall opinion of whether 18 months is adequate in general. Only in terms of how it affects the current release cycle schema.
While I prefer longer cycles, I believe this is acceptable. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
I think this all started when a release was so late that the community decided to shift from a six-month cycle to an eight-month cycle. We moved the goalposts. Now we're on an eight-month cycle and are about to move the goalposts again. The unfortunate fact of software project management is that stuff happens. openSUSE took some hard disk crashes recently, Fedora slipped Beefy Miracle three times for show-stopper bugs, and I'm sure Ubuntu has had some recent slips as well. Now that we have Tumbleweed, we could presumably do what Debian/Mint and Gentoo do - ship a "stable" release when everything is stable, provide bug fixes and security updates against stable in "Updates" and provide new features in Tumbleweed. "Factory" would be the equivalent of Debian "testing" and OBS the equivalent of "sid". Or we could go back to six-month release cycles, tighten our discipline up to work within that and take occasional slips for show-stopper bugs like Beefy Miracle did. As a user I don't have a strong preference - I run things out of OBS and even a few developers' home repositories. My openSUSE partitions typically use over a dozen repositories. When I need stability there's Windows 7 on my laptop. ;-) But I think we do have to do one or the other - ship stable only when we have stable or bite the bullet and go back to a six-month cycle like Fedora and Ubuntu. -- Twitter: http://twitter.com/znmeb Computational Journalism Server http://j.mp/compjournoserver Data is the new coal - abundant, dirty and difficult to mine. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org