In the original tick tock plan we would not have kept 4.0.x around. So I am proposing a change for that and then we label the 3.x and 4.x releases as "development releases" or some other thing and have "yearly" LTS releases with .0.x. Those are similar to the previous 1.2/2.0/2.1/2.2 and we are adding semi stable development releases as well which give people an easier way to try out new stuff than "build it yourself", which was the only way to do that in between the previous Big Bang releases.
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On 2016-10-20 13:26 (-0700), "J. D. Jordan" <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> If you think of the tick tock releases as interim development releases I >> actually think they have been working pretty well. What if we continue with >> the same process and do 4.0.x as LTS like we have 3.0.x LTS. >> >> So you get 4.x releases that are trickling out new features which will >> eventually be in the 5.0.x LTS and you get 4.0.x as an LTS release of all >> the 3.x built up features. >> >> This seems like a fairly straight forward process to me. It gives people >> monthly releases that they can test new features with, but it also provides >> a stable line for those that want one. >> > > So just tick/tock with new labels? How do we stop users from getting into the > situation where they're running 4.5, there's a critical flaw in 4.5, and > there's no 4.5.1 ever going to be released? Real users still won't want to > jump to 4.7, because there's added risk from stuff that went into 4.6 and 4.7 > ? Or is it simply "if you want to run bleeding edge, you better be willing to > stay on that bleeding edge for up to a year"? > > > >
