From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Jackson Subject: Re: RFC: Survey on release cycle Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:27:18 +0000 Message-ID: <22062.18006.257947.67227@mariner.uk.xensource.com> References: <20151012173222.GE2421@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1444825271.23192.178.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZqjgB-0003sy-Ec for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:27:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1444825271.23192.178.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Xen-devel , Wei Liu List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle"): > On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 18:32 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > The same stable release scheme applies (18 months full support + 18 > > months security fixes). Encourage more people to step up to share the > > maintenance burden if necessary. Automate part of the workflow to > > maintain stable releases. Write down guideline for maintainers. > > I think this "current stable release scheme" and "18 months full support", > implies an increase in the number of supported stable releases at any given > time. > > I'd therefore like to also propose: > > # 6 months release cycle + extended security support This would also be acceptable to me (+1 in Wei's notation). Ian.