based on [1] I would like to discuss how to introduce End-Of-Life
policy to our releasing schedule. I like way how GeoServer [2] works,
it's simple and clear. In current situation it could be
based on [1] I would like to discuss how to introduce End-Of-Life
policy to our releasing schedule. I like way how GeoServer [2] works,
it’s simple and clear. In current situation it could be
7.7 → develpment
7.6 → stable
7.4 → maintenance
Other versions in archive:
7.2 → EOL
7.0 → EOL
…
What do you think?
+1
So in terms of policy this would mean that we only maintain current and preceding minor release, with preceding only in bug fixing mode while current release also received relevant backports ?
pá 29. 3. 2019 v 8:48 odesílatel Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> napsal:
So in terms of policy this would mean that we only maintain current and preceding minor release, with preceding only in bug fixing mode while current release also received relevant backports ?
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:42 AM Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
based on [1] I would like to discuss how to introduce End-Of-Life
policy to our releasing schedule. I like way how GeoServer [2] works,
it's simple and clear. In current situation it could be
ceturtd., 2019. g. 11. apr., plkst. 23:46 — lietotājs Markus Neteler
(<neteler@osgeo.org>) rakstīja:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:42 AM Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 7.7 -> develpment
> 7.6 -> stable
> 7.4 -> maintenance
> What do you think?
I think we should stop adding LTS to releases unless we plan to
support them for several years (~one full Debian/Ubuntu LTS cycle).
One year a go we released 7.2.3 and labelled it as a LTS.
I am fine with Martin's proposal as long as we are clear what we mean with LTS.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 7:29 AM Maris Nartiss <maris.gis@gmail.com> wrote:
ceturtd., 2019. g. 11. apr., plkst. 23:46 — lietotājs Markus Neteler
(<neteler@osgeo.org>) rakstīja:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:42 AM Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 7.7 -> develpment
> > 7.6 -> stable
> > 7.4 -> maintenance
> > What do you think?
I think we should stop adding LTS to releases unless we plan to
support them for several years (~one full Debian/Ubuntu LTS cycle).
* Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> [2019-04-27 19:22:09 +0200]:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 7:29 AM Maris Nartiss <maris.gis@gmail.com> wrote:
ceturtd., 2019. g. 11. apr., plkst. 23:46 — lietotājs Markus Neteler
(<neteler@osgeo.org>) rakstīja:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:42 AM Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 7.7 -> develpment
> > 7.6 -> stable
> > 7.4 -> maintenance
> > What do you think?
I think we should stop adding LTS to releases unless we plan to
support them for several years (~one full Debian/Ubuntu LTS cycle).
One year a go we released 7.2.3 and labelled it as a LTS.
I am fine with Martin's proposal as long as we are clear what we mean with LTS.
From my side: we put an EOL year to each LTS, like other projects also do.
The important part is however, to eventually release the code (which
is always a lot of work, like many hours...).
Markus and all,
out of interest: what is the closest development and distribution
model, of other open source projects, that "matches" the one of GRASS
GIS?
