[asterisk-dev] Thoughts on Asterisk release management

[Michiel van Baak]

On 13:14, Thu 20 Sep 07, Matthew Fredrickson wrote:
> Russell Bryant wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I have had similar thoughts about this as well.  The 2.6 kernel has been 
> a good example of how to bridge the ~1.5 year gap that typically occurs 
> during the development cycle, so that when there are problems it doesn't 
> take a year and a half to even know about them.
> 
>  From the Zaptel perspective, we are already moving to a 2.6 style 
> development pattern, at least for non major changes to the architecture, 
> since it more closely follows what our needs are.
> 
> So, is your proposal basically to move Asterisk as well to a linux 
> kernel 2.6 style kernel release cycle?

Totally OT, I know, but couldn't resist:
Are we going to use git as well ?
-- 

Michiel van Baak
michiel at vanbaak.eu
http://michiel.vanbaak.eu
GnuPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x71C946BD

"Why is it drug addicts and computer afficionados are both called users?"