[wp-hackers] 120-day release cycle

[Geoffrey Sneddon]

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.