[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: New release policy for OpenLDAP
- To: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@symas.com>
- Subject: Re: New release policy for OpenLDAP
- From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 18:52:28 +0100
- Autocrypt: addr=michael@stroeder.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFbdnRoBCADj0vYA4aRwKJ6AE4mf8oElLgMT/1eLNKpJ2FYBWcwj9d8dTk5/p9b8DRxy S/qQIUUZqt9xRFZwUCm0vFeQMRDeN9xzAKoRzrJifoDOacOjG1lhZTKYvVZGgUT89Ao3QeHh Q7gPzcAKNoueoR2y3FXStOYuRrbk5PlSjVAITjsotgc7PWE9mmVYpeu8a+byK/DBHKUyolOA 1UXYvDa7MbPhMtdNm8qnwtKs1Vsyk1VkErM+5cIe+zTT6WYQcmZMRjCtWGiFTzk9W6Mdlskk WRTKhKNgokTsgcy1ecaCBUZWxv/SyXgD81+rwRi9b8Px+1reg43ayxi8sV7jrI1feybbABEB AAG0J01pY2hhZWwgU3Ryw7ZkZXIgPG1pY2hhZWxAc3Ryb2VkZXIuY29tPokBNwQTAQgAIQUC Vt2dGgIbAwULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRAH3HrjaovJOFpTCACjO773gcmJ KvzjiNpUFl/gANyaJgIq4VbMQ7VthRb1F9X6YbdJ6Z99ntyESjGFCpjofcSomr2vJDpv6ht+ lY33yo20YwsMpqe2OeId0jPybG+FtabKjgBNoAk7iqnBGUvE4t0dz0n1LQVCQR2jxyTKmcNq OYpsRZ3H+6kWwJMuVgsNZglINVZ8JgV5QuLYN5jhYz+pOuFnU11bV6nWREvzZXzebe7g7Zus 6AsWjtJ0lDvgBNzLlF3/eFrVch6Bejs0SvuFseIdZQk+4YU6Rb8xul/jDFXIfo7eTmijO3dV T5AmC1cUi8czncwpgAJnEH8vYv23RoN/aw2gSMCS2huIuQENBFbdnRoBCAC7L1cTVBVZZuM/ yxSUM5CsgGBlTD1Cr7C2ngZFsHSYXVLq6NUB8GZA2iLK96CrwnFw4/Jjz4llOjc50iVRMQKL RyFWOJAMrpPq2ew5T+Uoo524D//dwVbqkFVVuvM8NPiKIDyPGCjP+acM1D8hXwhOXgQ8Iz8Q 3/GRSYjitn9JrkF0ia2nhariznBKVu0LDffxF/hOCx45+QRR2/rYYlshfZMB7nEJX9P+hVfM CSzltz9Z8CldeUbiJvnyrISReR2XBw9oh8JkIUP0BtpIaify9A7EfzOk+W9BUnWe+YwdSUsB fJxOhSv+umyW5GMqZGFu+4oYnkzbe+1LUs1JarCtABEBAAGJAR8EGAEIAAkFAlbdnRoCGwwA CgkQB9x642qLyTjEUgf+JX6Atatl/QKe37yCj1OZYNPd3B0rPLJRF5mEmrADRXLZC9+uFeDS Wxxln040gnR6rjBHrRcvVmlTDiZY26iuL16+V+0/aZ9uyXNQSzk2cwDSiI/8gvr72Y+FN5fh cGXpeNHxHilYc9onzDhxyE76cwzqTKm4q2ULIH2u9IHQ5O86Fv6nHPYhe2fy1bhQapNwi/Xl 3G3i2WNH/w7m+1zWU1IddZOjmXzoxLT1BATwXGa0Tt5RjVb2mM1Wg3Zj6kqFkF2vvKcvrwj0 q0Ap5uyfN5m0uWzQMCMoaV9HQf7f5MkS1lnwBqDgnojjVAieX5uk7olUiRuPKHMfhvXulYP8 AA==
- Cc: openldap-devel@openldap.org
- Content-language: en-US
- In-reply-to: <C8A347D64AD13394B55BB2D1@[192.168.1.144]>
- References: <207ED8584CBD7485791411D1@[192.168.1.144]> <20200124194734.GC490@t570.nardis.ca> <CAN9BcdvvXKDsvpGtkQ7QnaCepAEahRx1V6GGUA06G8vY9QpV1w@mail.gmail.com> <E7E58E6D31FFFFF7878EF7F3@[192.168.1.144]> <4ff41be7-162d-8d77-7b85-5ca9a9da0039@stroeder.com> <A2E2FDAB8634B300E7C151D6@[192.168.1.144]> <4810f8fd-5ed4-bc41-8991-2f5cc2a7e7f6@stroeder.com> <1C46A93AEAB5C722A844A098@[192.168.1.144]> <7d812f1f-3750-ccd1-ab15-820932c203cd@stroeder.com> <C8A347D64AD13394B55BB2D1@[192.168.1.144]>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
On 1/28/20 7:45 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> Also, I really really really would like 2.4.49 to be the end of 2.4,
> outside the possibility of some critical CVEs.
But that's just your personal goal which is leaving systems in
production unpatched until you feel you're done. IMO that's totally wrong.
If releasing a new version is so much stress then there's something
fundamentally broken in the whole process.
I'd like to emphasize here that this is likely not your personal fault.
It rather shows a deficiencies of the infrastructure. I've offered help
in the past various times.
> As for the new release numbering, I've thought about that as well, and
> was thinking potentially we may skip a release. I.e., go from 2.5.1 to
> 2.5.3 with no 2.5.2 if we just need to do a bug fix release (or vice
> versa if we match Gnome's strategy as Ryan brought up.
I'm not a friend of artificial constraints which likely do not fit
reality later. I think there were good reasons why this scheme was
abandoned for Linux kernel development. I don't know the details though.
> But my point was, I think it's a fallacy to tie software quality and
> frequency of releases.
Of course such a simple assumption is bullshit. To me the list of
outstanding unfixed/unreleased issues matters most.
Ciao, Michael.