[rfc] six-month stable release cycles

[Eric Siegerman]

On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 16:39 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> A longer stable cycle has often been requested.  I think we should do
> it, now, along the lines of this document.

Yes, please.  Though I'll likely continue to run the betas, I
believe this proposal better serves more (classes of) people than
does the current scheme.


Re release numbering:

>  2.0 --- 2.0.1 -- 2.0.2 -- ...
>   \
>    +--3.0beta1 -- 3.0beta2 -- ... -- 3.0rc1 -- 3.0 -- 3.0.1 -- ...
>                                                 \
>                                                  \
>                                                   +-- 4.0beta1 ...

Two points:
  - The second component seems to be unused -- it's always .0 --
    so it might as well go away
  - How about Linux-kernel-style odd/even numbering?

Together, these would give something like:
   2.0 --- 2.1 -- 2.2 -- ...
    \
     +--3.0 -- 3.1 -- ... -- (RCs; see below) -- 4.0 -- 4.1 -- ...
                                                  \
                                                   \
                                                    +-- 5.0 -- 5.1
-- ...

The only question is what to call the RCs.  Either 3.90 or 4.0rc1
would be fine, though FWIW, I prefer the former.  (Note that in
this scheme, 3.90 isn't merely a marketing declaration that "we
think we're close to 4.0", as I believe the bzr 0.9x's were, but
formally denotes a release candidate for 4.0.  Of course, the .90
release does serve that marketing function too, as a useful side
effect.)

  - Eric