On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Peter Lind <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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".
No, it is the same that what we proposed. What we proposed is that
every release is actually a LTS release. What Ubuntu uses works fine
for distros given that it is a distro with an insane amount of totally
unrelated projects they distribute, and alternative repositories exist
for almost each of them.
For a programming language, it is a totally different story.
for ref: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org