[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: New release policy for OpenLDAP
- To: openldap-devel@openldap.org
- Subject: Re: New release policy for OpenLDAP
- From: Ryan Tandy <ryan@nardis.ca>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:47:34 -0800
- Content-disposition: inline
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nardis.ca; s=google; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=FfrYumZtuOff9nTI258KAqtPFiJxGTYTz2CKRl7G/yo=; b=My63s0OLr2xLFvqRPW2Uk61wWr22PSw7v8//bezZF4OL11V8kZSLwHq2JPwohLozN3 K3CWLY6+lU5KvQHkXBZEw8DJk6qy5gYDrQ++fujDmGhtdakeDL7nRSslWGYowXaT9a60 99mogqYWaPsx/ii9p/soXOzbX78/SDMalG6Lk=
- In-reply-to: <207ED8584CBD7485791411D1@[192.168.1.144]>
- References: <207ED8584CBD7485791411D1@[192.168.1.144]>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 08:12:49AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Starting with OpenLDAP 2.5, the OpenLDAP project will use a new
release process.
Odd numbered releases will contain only bug fixes
Even numbered releases will allow for minor new features
Works for me. Similar to Gavin's note, I'd point out this is opposite to
GNOME's numbering [1] which might occasionally confuse downstreams who
work with both. Speaking of which, is the odd/even numbering intended to
apply to the patch version only (2.5.{1,2}) or the minor version
(2.{5,6}.y) as well?
Why was this particular approach chosen? As opposed to, for example,
doing feature releases more often (e.g. 2.6 as soon as a few months
after 2.5), or adding a fourth version component (2.5.y.z) for strictly
bugfix-only patch releases? Not trying to advocate a change of decision,
just interested in the thought process...
[1] https://developer.gnome.org/programming-guidelines/stable/versioning.html.en#stable-unstable-versions