On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> The question is, why is it coming so fast after 96? How is that explained
> to the users, that's what I meant by "official message". The new features
> could come on normal cadence (December-ish?).
We explain it by saying there is a new major release with a few new
features in it.
And after 0.98, there'll be another release in a few months w/ yet more new
features (hopefully a 1.0.0 if 0.98 is not 1.0.0).
We'd like to get back on to a cadence where a new major release comes out
every 2-3 months. We need to put this over-long 0.96 incubation behind us.
Short cycles are easier on all concerned; less risk upgrading, less
pressure on devs to make the release date -- they can just catch next one
(as per Lars's precedent over in 0.94).
> If these features are stable, is 98 is just a "better 96"? Why would anyone
> use 96 then when 98 is coming out immediately?
Because they might think 0.96 more stable since it has been baked longer
than the new 0.98 release. Intent would be that they could upgrade to the
0.98 with a rolling restart anyways so no need to wait on 0.98.
> If we are doing that we
> might as well delay 96 to get them instead of doing another major release
> in a month (wearing the vendor-independent hat).
0.96 has been going on for way too long already. It can't wait any more.
If for some, 0.96 is a 'dead' release because they'll go direct to 0.98 or
1.0.0 direct, well and good.