---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Mark A. Hershberger" <mah(a)everybody.org>
Date: Feb 25, 2013 10:03 AM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Release policy
To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc:
> After the discussion last week, I want to scope out a release policy so
> that we'll all know what to expect.
>
> * A major release will be made every six months.
>
> * An LTS release will be made every two years. There will be a one-year
> overlap in LTS support. For example, 1.19 is supported until May 2015.
> 1.23 will be released the year before that so that people will have 1.23
> available as an LTS to move to and a year to make the transition.
>
> * Releases notes will continue to be the basis for seeing what has
> changed. Because of the nature of a volunteer-driven project, it isn't
> possible to say with any certainty what *will* happen in the next 6-12
> months.
>
> * To mitigate the problem of release notes, we will publish a list of
> new features in the upcoming LTS relative to the last LTS six months
> before it comes out. This means that about the time when 1.22 comes
> out, we'll have an announcement for 1.19 users letting them know what
> changes they can expect in 1.23.
>
> * Point releases will be made periodically. Frequency TBD. Every point
> release will include updated i18n files as well as any bug fixes. No
> new features will be back-ported to point releases.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark.
>
> --
> http://hexmode.com/
>
> There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
> -- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
(Adding a couple of mailing lists so others can weigh in. Changing
subject so those added aren't completely lost.)
On 02/21/2013 11:55 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
> Ok, just a question as humble 3rd party MediaWiki user and technical
> volunteer coordinator at the WMF: is there a possibility to consider
> having a regular free software release process?
>
> master/unstable ---> (testing releases?) ---> stable releases
...
> I think the current process is ok-ish in the short term: non-WMF
> contributors are getting +2 and 3rd parties are getting tarballs.
As you say, I think the current process is Ok(ish) for now. We need to
get others in the MediaWiki "ecosystem" involved in core before this
becomes something we really need to do.
It would be great to have developers from other significant MediaWiki
sites (like Referata, Wikia, Citizendium, etc) become more involved and
start introducing features or hooks that they use into core or making
the extensions available. Of course, some of those developers have
already been involved.
But right now, I don't sense a huge amount of friction between the WMF's
needs and the non-WMF MediaWiki-using community. The most that can be
said is that the WMF is focused on its sites and doesn't make third
party use a priority. This doesn't stop support for other databases,
though: Oracle, MS SQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, or even my recent changes to
separate out DB schema changes in MySQL.
That said, I'm very interested in this conversation. As MZ will remind
you, I did advocate for the formation of the MediaWiki Foundation.
Mark.
--
http://hexmode.com/
There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
-- Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"