Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: LTS and stable release scheme

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's still that way nowadays, but in the years after
> stable and long term releases got introduced in Linux even long
> term branches weren't all equal: The general stable tree maintainer
> actively argued against the use of certain branches (or certain
> releases on a branch after it changed ownership), due to it being
> of unknown (in the best case) quality.

Perhaps I'm not familiar enough with what went on with Linux, but I
can't make much sense out of what you're describing here.  Are you
saying that the stable tree maintainer would say, "Officially 3.X.Y is
a stable release, but really you shouldn't use it, because it's a bit
dodgy.  Use 3.Z.Q or 3.M.N instead."

> Bottom line: I think the current model, with all releases being
> equal and there being the opportunity to hand over branches to
> "external" maintainers after the XenProject support ended
> (exercised exactly once to date), is quite a bit better than any
> of the LTS options I've seen proposed so far.

There's no reason that people can't offer to take up specific versions
once they fall off our own LTS.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel