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@freedbms.net
> <mailto:zen@freedbms.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@postgresql.org
>     <mailto:pgsql-general@postgresql.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.klaver@aklaver.com