2.16.3 will not be a branch, but could be a release/tag if we consider there is a need (security issue, critical bug)
I think we should now focus on 2.17.
Non impportant bug fixes and other improvements should not go in 2.16 branch.
2.16.3 will not be a branch, but could be a release/tag if we consider there is a need (security issue, critical bug)
I think we should now focus on 2.17.
Non impportant bug fixes and other improvements should not go in 2.16 branch.
agree. Also I think we should choose only a few version to keep in good health a long time and tag them as "LTS". Maybe 2.16 could be the first LTS ? Then 1 LTS every 2 years, maintained during 4 years.
What do you think ?
Hi,
agree. Also I think we should choose only a few version to keep in good health a long time and tag them as "LTS". Maybe 2.16 could be the first LTS ? Then 1 LTS every 2 years, maintained during 4 years.
What do you think ?
I think it is to complex. The minor versions of 2.0 branch are quite stable and upgrades are easy. We should not loose time to maintain old versions.
People looking for LTS should use versions from Debian or Ubuntu.
I think it is to complex. The minor versions of 2.0 branch are quite stable and upgrades are easy. We should not loose time to maintain old versions.
People looking for LTS should use versions from Debian or Ubuntu.
Yes, this was my idea. The "patch" versions are just here to provide quickly critical bugfixes without waiting for next minor version.
We can go like this and discuss it again if we face a problem.
Yes, this was my idea. The "patch" versions are just here to provide quickly critical bugfixes without waiting for next minor version.
We can go like this and discuss it again if we face a problem.
