On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:28:41 +0100
Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)volny.cz> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
> So, instead of trying to tweak the life cycle, how about another
> alternate approach:
I'm not sure I understand the proposed alternative.
> - We setup new rules/critera/test plans for when updates are
> allowed to go stable that are in this group.
> - Work to improve fedup support for server use cases (remote
> machine, etc) and make sure Fn->Fn+1 for server case is heavily
> tested and rollbacks are supported.
This seems to suggest updates on the "Fn->Fn+1" schedule (presumed to
be 6 months?). Is that correct?
Yes, or whatever schedule the Fn repository uses (6 months now, or if
we move to 9 months or whatever)
Or are you proposing to not tackle the lifecycle question at all now,
and instead focus on these areas?
I'm saying that I think lifecycle should be something to discuss among
the groups and we should try not to have seperate lifecycles per
product (at least in the short term since we have so many other things
to figure out).