Re: advocating LTS release and feature-train release cycles

On 06/01/2015 07:11 PM, Arthur Silva wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen(at)freedbms(dot)net
> <mailto:zen(at)freedbms(dot)net>> wrote:
>
> My comments advocating a (ubuntu/debian/linux-kernel/firefox) LTS
> release and feature-train release cycle:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/646740/
> https://lwn.net/Articles/646743/
>
> The parent article "PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly":
> https://lwn.net/Articles/645020/
>
> My summary (from one of my comments above):
> "For PostgreSQL may be:
> - normal release every 3 or 4 months
> - LTS release every 12, 18 or 24 months
>
> This model provides:
> - higher frequency normal releases to
> a) showcase new features to the public and
> b) reduce pressure on developers wanting to not miss an "infrequent
> annual" release; and
>
> - lower frequency LTS releases to
> a) focus testing, stability and long term support resources
> b) satisfy "conservative/ enterprise" RDBMS admins
> "
>
> Regards,
> Zenaan
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> <mailto:pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
>
>
> I'm surprised it got no replies so far.
>
> In my opinion a twice a year schedule would be good.
> The LTS would be every 2 or 4 releases. Keeping 2 LTS versions supported
> at all moments.

In my opinion, FWIW, that really does not change anything. Whether you
are dealing with 20 new features over a year or 10 over half a year the
same constraints apply, writing the code and getting it reviewed over a
given time period. Add in the extra overhead costs of more frequent
releases and I see no gain.

>
> Maybe this should be reposted to the hackers list?

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com