[cdwg] Summary of telecon on July 26, and review of information for the board

[Christopher J. Morrone]

I am not opposed to ad-hoc maintenance releases, but I think it would be 
problematic to advertise the ad-hoc maintenance releases on a roadmap. 
We really want to avoid the same confusion we find ourselves in now.

For instance, I would have thought that the difference between 
"maintenance release" and "feature release" would have been clear, but 
obviously it wasn't.  Having two kinds of branches with "maintenance" in 
the name that have very different levels of support and community 
involvement planned is probably asking for trouble.

But I'll reword my version to tone it down a bit, and work in the ad-hoc 
bit.

On 07/27/2012 12:14 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> Thanks for writing this up. I think that my only suggestion alteration
> would be with this section. I think that my characterization of this
> section would be that any additional maintenance release would be on the
> roadmap but clearly marked as an ad-hoc maintenance release rather than
> the codeline itself being the official maintenance release stream (with
> a succession of pre-scheduled releases).  I think that the confusion
> here is that the expectation is that ad-hoc releases would occur as
> needed and likely not have much lead time, as opposed to releases on the
> maintenance release stream, which we would know about sometime ahead.
>
> On 12-07-27 12:03 PM, Christopher J. Morrone wrote:
>> <snip>
>
>> There was some discussion among folks who intend to use 2.3 in
>> production that it would be nice to have a "mini-maintenance" branch
>> to hold them over until 2.4 is released.  Note that this branch would
>> not be supported for a significant period of time, likely only a few
>> month.  This will happen if there is sufficient demand and resources
>> applied, but to avoid confusion among the broader community we will
>> not be advertising this release.  We will also try to avoid using the
>> term "maintenance" in association with 2.3 to avoid expectations of
>> long term support if that branch becomes a reality.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdwg mailing list
> cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
>