On 2 June 2011 10:23, Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Peter Lind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for jumping into the thread, but I couldn't help noting that you seem
>> confused about the distro suggestion. I think Ubuntu was the example, and
>> there's nothing random at all about their release process. There are fixed
>> timelines and life cycles in Ubuntu - having less branches does not in any
>> way stop them from having a fixed release process and schedule.
>
> It is about "random" release being chosen as LTS. For many users, it
> will preventing migration until a given feature is part of a LTS
> release.
>
> Our proposal to have fixed life time and release cycles does not have
> this random effect and each x.y release is equally supported for the
> same duration. The amount of branches can be reduced easily and even
> if we may have many at one point, it will be only about sec fixes,
> that's really not a problem (a bit of automated tasked will help here
> too).
Then it's an argument about wording, not content. See
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases : the LTS have fixed
life time and
come at fixed intervals - basically exactly the same you propose with
"fixed life time and release cycles".
Regards
Peter
--
<hype>
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk
LinkedIn: plind
BeWelcome/Couchsurfing: Fake51
Twitter: kafe15
</hype>