[asterisk-dev] Thoughts on Asterisk release management

[Russell Bryant]

Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> The point is: this tries to mimmic the success of the faster development
> of Kernel 2.6. But with Kernel 2.6 there is a huge QA buffer between the
> developers and the end users. s a result, servers have very diverse
> kernel versions and upgrading to the latest to get a new feature is
> sometimes not an option.
> 
> I'm not saying that this is a bad idea. Just saying that when we get to
> 1.9 , we'll still get bug reports from people running 1.5 . And asking
> them to test with 1.9 wouldn't be a realistic option.

I would like to clarify that I do not want to replace our current model with
this one.  I want to use it as a compliment to our current release model.  I
would like to continue to maintain long release life cycles like we have for 1.0
and 1.2.  However, in between these, I would like to have short development
release cycles that mimic 2.6 kernel.

Also, I am hoping that if we can make it easier to test new code by

1) implementing this new development release cycle, and
2) developing a test suite to ease testing efforts

that we can get some community members to start dedicating resources to the
testing effort, which will result in growing that QA buffer for Asterisk, as well.

-- 
Russell Bryant
Software Engineer
Digium, Inc.