Hi, I was wondering if we should not reconsider the length of our release cycles.
One year between feature versions is quite a lot. Perhaps 6 months would be a good compromise between having enough time to mature a complex feature and faster delivery of it to people not directly consuming master. A consequence of this is that our usual policy of supporting the last released branch during the development cycle of the next release would also go to 6 month (to avoid supporting too many branches at the same time), or perhaps even 4 (see below example) I've also heard voices wishing to have more frequent bugfix releases. Every 2 months could be reasonable. So a likely schedule could be: T0 (now) GDAL 3.1.0 T0 + 2 months GDAL 3.1.1 T0 + 4 months GDAL 3.1.2 T0 + 6 months GDAL 3.2.0 (optionaly, a final 3.1.3) Comparison with related projects: - PROJ: feature version every 4 months, with a bugfix release in the middle. Potential major (breaking) version every year. - QGIS: feature version every 4 months, with monthly bugfix releases (way more complicated than that with several versions supported in parallel, but was to make it simple...) Of course depending on what comes to master, things could be reconsidered to let a bit more time for maturing a feature if needed, so 6 months is more an indication than a firm delay. This is also dependent on people doing the actual work. I'll do my share, but help always welcome. Thoughts ? Even -- Spatialys - Geospatial professional services http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
