Re: Proposal: begin 1.1 release stabilization.

On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 12:37, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> allow me to
> recommend that we simply state that as a matter of policy, we will
> keep at most N maintenance branches alive. As new major and minor
> releases come out, old ones drop off the radar. If we have a policy
> regarding this, we can better plan announcements, which means users
> have time to react, and means our volunteer release managers know up
> front what they're getting themselves into. :-)

Definitely some advantages to that approach... like, predictablity.

But a disadvantage is that it "ties" our support burden to releases. I
mean, what if, for some reason, Subversion 1.2 doesn't come out for a
*year*. Now we're obligated to support 1.0.x, even when 3 people are
left using it?

In other words, our releases aren't tightly scheduled, so our dropping
of support for old releases doesn't need to be either. To me, it only
makes sense for *both* things to be either tightly scheduled, or not.

> But I don't feel so strongly about any of this that I'll debate it any
> further. Just making suggestions. :-)

Yah, no big deal to me either. Sorry for the line noise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jun 7 19:48:07 2004