[rfc] six-month stable release cycles

[Martin Pool]

2009/7/31 Michael Homer <michael at e.geek.nz>:
> I am in a similar position as a packager and have about the same
> concerns. None of them is a good option. I really can't justify
> shipping something labelled "beta" all the time, even when it's
> exactly the same release that would have been around anyway, but at
> the same time I also share Matthew's feelings about outdated versions.
> It starts to feel a bit like mplayer, which has made nothing but
> prereleases for years, to the point that they're just abusing the
> notation. I would prefer at least that they had real version numbers
> unless they're proper, actual betas.
>
> In all other regards it seems like a reasonable idea, it's just a pain
> from this perspective. It is less of a concern for Ubuntu with the
> usual six-month gap than it is for a rolling-release distribution.

Which system do you work on, just for curiousity?

So there's a question of labeling and a question of substance.  If
wanted to stick with this scheme but make the development releases
have less scary names we could call them 2.90 etc.  However, following
all the development releases really is going to give you a quite
different experience, therefore I think they should look a bit
different.

I guess by 'proper, actual beta' you mean something that's stabilizing
rather than developing?

I think ultimately you and Matthew need to take a position on what
kind of release experience your users want.  If they're ok with things
changing quite a lot from one month to the next as at present, stick
with the monthlies.  If, as some other Bazaar users do, they want
something more stable, ship the stable releases.  If you have many
users who want both options, perhaps you need to package both.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>