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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 06.10.15 at 16:12, <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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."

Yes. Or "Use 3.X.Y only up to a certain Y."

>> 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.

Of course not, and I don't think I ruled this out. It's just that such
a branch wouldn't be considered XenProject.org-maintained anymore.

Jan


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