Mark Phippard wrote:
> I think it is just another example that "regular" releases are not appropriate for this project at this stage of its life with a lack of regular activity.
[...]
> Also, as brane already pointed out, this would also be making a mockery of regular releases.
Mark, I do understand that for your case, each minor release is a
problem. So far, we haven't been able to understand and resolve how we
could alleviate that, other than by making fewer or no minor releases.
In the mean time, making an extra one would be sore.
Given that you're about the only downstream maintainer who discusses the
issues here, I take that seriously.
So, that takes us back to
1.) Proposing we stop or change the way we do minor releases, and do
something different?
2.) Maybe not insert an extra release. Instead,
2a.) postpone and change the release we've already prepared?; or
2b.) get the work ready for the next LTS instead?
What do you think we should do?
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> Surely the right approach is to release what we have got [...], then
>> [...] a new minor release, calling it 1.14.
>
> Would this be the LTS release it is supposed to be?
Do you mean, "Would this new '1.14' be an LTS release?" The answer to
that is no. It would be neither LTS nor regular. The next LTS will be
released next April; we previously assumed it would be numbered 1.14-LTS
but if we do things this way then it would probably be numbered 1.15-LTS
instead.
- Julian
Received on 2019-10-21 14:29:01 CEST