[wp-hackers] 120-day release cycle
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Mon Oct 2 17:24:24 GMT 2006
On 2 Oct 2006, at 18:14, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ___/ On Mon 02 Oct 2006 12:46:54 BST, [ Matt Mullenweg ] wrote : \___
>> Elliotte Harold wrote:
>>> It's better to set up separate branches in the source repository
>>> so the crazy fun wild development can run in parallel with the
>>> testing and polishing.
>> We would continue to create branches for major releases to release
>> bugfix and security releases as needed.
> Unless I misinterpreted something, I think Elliotte was
> referring to the need for constant vigorous development
> where testing milestones are reached and future extension
> carries on simultaneously (not only bugfixes for older
> supported releases). A bit like stable and unstable Debian,
> or even the Kernel Mm tree that is maintained by Andrew
> Morton. I suppose that Fedora and RHEL would be another
> example... that in itself signals the need for multiple
> patchmasters or maintainers, I think.
That's what I think Elliotte meant as well. I'd throw myself behind
breaking it up into three branches (like Debian), unstable, testing
and stable; however, implementing slightly differently to Debian: so,
we move unstable to testing once we have the feature freeze (then
starting a new unstable branch), with testing replacing stable at the
end of the 4 month release cycle.
- Geoffrey Sneddon.
More information about the wp-hackers